94 Comments

1. Pete at BS says:

   June 23, 2009 at 7:53 pm

   Shim, I looked financial ruin in the eyes after my daughter died. BCBS paid the $1.3million, but there was a whole bunch that wasn’t covered. Defaulted on the student loans….had to cash in my 401K and then couldn’t pay the HUGE taxes and penalties on it. Cool thing is you can’t get rid of the IRS or the Government backed student loans with bankruptcy….so even though I had insurance, I ended up screwed by the other large costs of a catastropic illness…like the loss of my wife’s income, like the added gas of running back and forth downtown two to three times a day, like the added meals because when you are in a hurry you don’t brown bag it to the hospital. IF BCBS had capped at the $1mill, I would have been responsible for another $300K, hmmm, I wonder where that would have come from. Took me 8 years to pay off my portion before I could actually start to save to buy a house.

   Another point……Tom Golisano left New York (really didn’t, just filled out a change of address card) because it saved him $4.5 million a year in taxes. If Golisano was only worth $1billion, which I think is way short the percentage of his income is .45% not 45% or even 4.5%….less than half of one percent. With my salary of $60K that is equal to $270 ….. KInd of hard for me to feel like Mr. Golisano is being punished when I look at the math.

   Finally, as I said above…we’re already paying for those insured people to be treated, and we are paying lots because it is more expensive to treat really sick people than it is to keep them healthy. Sadly, if we all had insurance the greedy bastards at the top of the health insurance food chain wouldn’t return that difference. They would role it into dividend checks, much like the greedy bastards at the top of the oil and gas industry. See last time gas was almost three bucks a gallon the cost of crude was around $100 a barrel. Now it’s the same price, but trading at like $70 per barrel….that’s how well the free markets take care of us when it comes to things we need as opposed to things we want. Certainly, capitalism has driven down the cost of flat panel tvs and cell phones, but lets not discount the law of supply and demand when it comes to necessities. The free markets are great for a gouge there.

   As I also said earlier…call us socialists….tell us how unfair it is to those poor over taxed rich people, but again, you didn’t offer any solutions. If you knew today that universal healthcare would be instituted by January 1, what would you do to make it palletable to the GOP?
2. Mike In WNY says:

   June 23, 2009 at 8:19 pm

   Pete cavalierly dismisses solid evidence because it does not fit his misguided viewpoint. And, BP assumes unsupported facts. Pete’s situation is truly heart-breaking. It is also the result of a health care system designed by government regulations. The type of reform I would like to see in health care would have provided good medical care and left Pete with little or no medically incurred debt.
3. Pete at BS says:

   June 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm

   @Mike In WNY – What “solid evidence” do I cavalierly dismiss?

   And this health care plan that you envision that would have left me with little to no debt….do tell….how would you achieve this?
4. Ray says:

   June 23, 2009 at 8:43 pm

   “Pete, Shim and Ray would have preferred that your daughter not receive treatment, or that you be on the hook for the entire $1.3 million.”

   That was an asinine thing to say.

   Jon Splett reveals what liberals really feel. It’s all about them and they don’t care who they steel from to get what they want. To make them feel good about it, they pretend they are taking from the rich and ignore they are taking it from everybody else too.
5. Mike In WNY says:

   June 23, 2009 at 8:44 pm

   @Pete,
   These two statement –
   

   The argument that the law says that you can’t be refused “life saving” treatment is silly. A link to a page full of resources for cancer victims without insurance is adding insult to injury.

   You apparently don’t believe in the law, yet you advocate more government involvement, kind of inconsistent, wouldn’t you say?

   As far as a free-market system performing better for everyone, including the poor, I, and others, have written about it many times. There are plenty of resources on the web to find all kinds of different viewpoints on health care. Study them all and form an informed conclusion.
6. Mike Walsh says:

   June 23, 2009 at 8:59 pm

   Everybody needs to back up a bit and look at the facts. There is no free market in health care(or oil, gas, and banking). What you have is a loosely aligned cartel in league with the government and a labyrinth of regulations, laws, lobbying and on and on.

   This current plan under consideration will just add to the complexity of the situation and I can guaranty you that the rich won’t be paying for it.

   And Pete, I’ve had several people close to me who died of cancer and enormous bills incurred. Instead of arguing over who should pay maybe we should be asking the question of “why the hell does this cost so much?”.
7. Pete at BS says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm

   My point in the statement that your argument was silly was not that I don’t believe in or support the law…..my point was in the very next paragraph…and that is that by saying that healthcare providers have to provide “lifesaving” or “emergency” treatment we are waiting until the care provided is at the most expensive level and then all consumers pay for it anyway because providers and insurance companies raise their prices to cover that really expensive, yet unpaid for care. I think the law is good, and in my very consistent view, I am all for UNIVERSAL healthcare. That, by the way, doesn’t mean socialized medicine…it means everyone has healthcare.

   And my point about the webpage full of resources for cancer patients without insurance is made from there forward in my earlier post….I had insurance and it still cost me tens of thousands of dollars. If I didn’t have insurance how would these “resources” have helped with the $1.3million I didn’t have to pay. It was the most horrible experience ever for a 4-5 year old, and for me to have to watch it. I am not at all sure how we would have been able to find the time to apply to the different groups for additional money to try to pay for it, or having to take her to different places for different treatments. It was horrible as it was and she had a great team of people working on her at both Childrens and Roswell….same Docs both places.

   And Mike, not only have I experienced the healthcare system very closely, I am also part of the group that studies the different plans at work to decide which plan we will use….pretty familiar with healthcare. What’s your credentials? You read about it on the internet? Certainly if it is on the internet it must be true, right?

   And I still haven’t heard your ideas for that healthcare reform….other than let the free market take care of ot. Free market worked pretty well in the financial industry too. Yeah, I’m a big fan. Guys on the top get huge bonuses even though they tank their companies by overleveraging on too risky products. People who trusted them to invest wisely get screwed out of their retirement funds….yep, free market works really well.
8. Pete at BS says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:26 pm

   @mike, I agree 100%. It’s too damn expensive. There’s lots of reasons for that. My point is and has been from the beginning that this is the United States of America…every person in this country should have health care, and people shouldn’t go hungry.

   I have never said that every person should have Nikes, I have never said everyone should have cell phones, flat panel TVs, Ipods, cars, paid vacation, weekends and evenings off. I have never said that every person should own a house. I have never said that everyone should be able to order pizza, have cosmetic surgery, or get free massages.

   What I have said, and I stand by is that in this country, that is so good at so many things, we ought to be able to find a way for every person to have food and healthcare.

   I do not necessarily believe that it has to be funded on the backs of the rich. I do not necessarily know how that it could be achieved. What I do know is that it could be achieved if the special interests didn’t buy politicians of both parties away from doing the right thing in order to fulfill their own self-interests. I believe that when we focus on a problem as a nation we should be able to solve it. We put a man on the moon. We’ve spent trillions on ways to kill people effectively. How can we not solve these two quality of life issues….I cannot ever buy into the right wing rgument that essentially says…those people didn’t work hard enough so they don’t deserve to eat or to have health insurance. As I have said several times….it is a remarkably selfish reason for not addressing the problems.

   I also can admit that as long as there is this partisan divide we will not solve the problem. It would be very nice to be able to say….Ladies and Gentlemen in Congress…the problem is Healthcare. You have until the end of your term to solve it or you will all be voted out. In order to pass the legislation you need 80% of the House to approve it. Idealistic, I know, but you would get a more moderate approach to legislation, and I think most people want more compromise out of our government.
9. Ray says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:47 pm

   @ Mike Walsh

   “Instead of arguing over who should pay maybe we should be asking the question of “why the hell does this cost so much?”.”

   Isn’t it clear by now since we have argued with both liberals and neocons for so long that they don’t care about the truth. They only care about what is, so they ignore your argument and your evidence. In their mind there were no critical events in the past that lead directly to the current crisis. Incredibly enough they always seem to choose the same road to hell that got us here in the first place.

   @Pete

   “I am all for UNIVERSAL healthcare. That, by the way, doesn’t mean socialized medicine…it means everyone has healthcare.”

   Explain that one. How can everyone have health care without its costs being socialized? In your view we won’t have any barking socialist bureaucrats deciding what is best for us?

   Pete, Also in your last paragraph you have clearly proven to us that you don’t know what the free market is. Anybody that thinks the elements of the financial industry that you mention are anything resembling a free market is more than a bit confused. No Pete they are progressive institutions, made by big government progressives for the benefit of big government progressives. Look at Obama’s cabinet and financial advisers, you’ll find some of the key scoundrels there.
10. Buffalo Hodgepodge says:

    June 23, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    Is it any wonder that we’ll never solve this issue?
11. Pete at BS says:

    June 23, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    “they are progressive institutions, made by big government progressives for the benefit of big government progressives”

    @Ray – That’s bullshit. Sounds like conspiracy theory crap to me. And wasn’t it one of W’s advisors Henry Paulson that helped design that really cool default credit swap that while he was the Secretary of Treasury he admitted that he had no idea how to place a value on them?

    And all these huge financial institutions are progressive institutions…HA! Yeah right.

    Maybe it’s not me that’s more than a bit confused.
12. Brian says:

    June 23, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    BRILLIANT!
    “it’s another money grab and attack on the higher income earners in this country plain and simple.”

    As much as the Republicans have become the party of anti-intellectualism, celebrating the lowest common denominator (see Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, etc.), I do take my hat off to them in this regard:

    Republican conservatives have mastered the art of getting the majority to do the bidding of the teeny tiny minority. It’s odd to watch individuals who’ll likely never have a household income over $25k complain about the soaking of the rich! Many of those who make up the Republican base would be helped by Democratic sponsored programs and philosophies—but they’re too busy voting based on gay marriage and abortion! Pathetic, yet priceless!

    If Dems could operate at that level of deceit and manipulation, they’d really be cookin’!
13. Ray says:

    June 23, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    “@Ray – That’s bullshit.”

    Geez Pete, you really are a neophyte when it comes to history and politics. Are you one of those guys that thinks anything they don’t know or understand is a “conspiracy theory”? Just like Buffalopundit.
    Of course you went from being a Republican to being a Democrat, I guess you thought you were making some grand ideological shift in principles too..

    GWB and Henry Paulson are your examples of free market guys too. LOL! Now I know for sure you don’t know what the words “free market” means..
14. shim says:

    June 23, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    “Shim and Ray would prefer your daughter not recieve treatment or that you would be on the hook for the entire $1.3 million”. Pundit that was a TOTALLY assinine and foolish thing to say. My heart breaks for Pete (or anyone else) that had to suffer the loss of a child. Period. While it doesn’t surprise me, shame on you for twisting the facts of my argument. Pete with all due respect, your example of Tom Golisano really isn’t realistic when it comes to the majority of Americans that are considered “rich” and are going to be negatively effected by tax increases under this Administration. In your attempt to punish a few billionaires you are going to hurt an awful lot of others along the way by raising their taxes to pay for this health care system. Where does it end? That’s all I’m trying to say. As for you Pundit….again shame on you for stooping so low to try and bolster your argument.
15. Mike In WNY says:

    June 23, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    Heath care reform:

    1. Eliminate the third party payer system.

    2. Detach heath insurance from employment.

    3. Let individuals decide which insurance company and what levels of coverage they want.

    4. Insurance will be for catastrophic coverage, major surgery, etc.

    5. Routine care is paid out of pocket directly to the provider.

    This system puts the cost accountability back in the lap of the consumer and provider, sparks competition and lowers prices.

    Doctor’s will be working for patients, not insurance companies. Doctor’s will be accountabile to patients, not insurance companies.

    Doctor’s will spend less time complying with bureaucracies and more time treating patients.

    Doctor’s will be spending less money on accounting and be able to perform pro bono work and taylor charges to the ability to pay in many cases.

    Losing a job, or changing jobs, will not mean the loss of insurance coverage.

    Insurance companies will operate leaner due to competition. Insurance costs will go down.
16. Ray says:

    June 23, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    shim, when Pundit doesn’t have an argument, he always resorts to the straw man or personal attack approach. I’m used to it but that was an exceptionally low blow even for Pundit.
17. David Allen says:

    June 23, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    I think we’re putting the cart before the horse. My question is, what should a new health care system look like? Free complete health care, including transplants and unlimited cancer treatments for everyone on demand? Would assisted suicides be covered? Prescriptions? Medicinal marijuana? Mental Health? Wellness? Rehab Clinics?

    What about caveats? Should we prohibit lung cancer treatment if it results from smoking? Liver problems from drinking? Quit wasting tax dollars on old people?

    I’m not advocationg any of this – I’m only proposing that the administration stop rushing a half-assed proposal, step back and work it out right the first time.
18. Mike In WNY says:

    June 24, 2009 at 2:40 am

    @David Allen, you acknowledge that a national plan will prohibit some procedures. How on earth can you work that out “right” the first time? Government bean counters should not be making health care decisions.
19. Pete at BS says:

    June 24, 2009 at 6:43 am

    @ Ray – I am very aware that an actual free market does not exist. And it can’t exist because people are greedy. If 1. People could be trusted to make ethical and moral decisions, perhaps the free market could actually exist. Executives prove every day that they need to be regulated. 2. Corporations only job is to make money. With that as a sole mission, things need to be regulated BECAUSE workers can be treated poorly, quality can be lowered, advertising can be untrue, decisions that are not good for the consumers or stockholders can be made (overleveraging investment houses in ULTRA risky default credit swaps and mortgage backed securities) SO….

    The Free Market does not exist in it’s theoretical form. American Capitalism does exist, and operates on many free market principles. As I said earlier….it has worked very well to drive the cost down on things that we want, but not so well on things that we need.

    If you are going to talk about the mythical Free Markets as if they can exist, then it is you that is an idiot, not me.

    @ Mike in WNY – Oh yes, all of those things you talk about are what we tax sucking liberals want too…….except, in American Capitalism, it doesn’t work. Some of these industries…oil, pharma, health insurance are as close to cartels as you can get. These are smart (yet sometimes ethically challenged) businessmen who…by the very definition of capitalism…are only in it to make money. I always love when the droolers over the free market jump on one horse….if there’s competition the price will come down. Except for that “law of supply and demand’ thing…because with health care there will always be demand, keeping the price up there….so, the suppliers don’t have to lower their prices. It’ll be like chosing a cell phone plan….one company will offer half price MRIs, while the other company offers half price prescriptions, and at the end of the day you will still pay a ridiculous amount of money because the only job of a corporation is to make money.

    You guys get all juicy about capitalism, the corporate state is to be feared too. Don’t think for a minute it is all good and the grass is green in the pasture where the businessmen make all the decisions…and with the powerful lobbies that write alot of our laws now, it is something to be worried about. Corporations are not benevolent entities, they have no conscience and no moral compass. They cannot be trusted to make the right decisions any more than large government can. They are only as good as the people on top, and that lot has proven to be as selfish as they come. The Boards of Directors who are made up of rich guys and girls set contracts for the CEOS that reward them ridiculously EVEN when they fail…is that how the free market works fellahs? CEOs make huge packages while the workers have to cut benefits and pay in order for the company to stay open? And that is a good model for healthcare how?
20. shim says:

    June 24, 2009 at 8:41 am

    Pundit..I took great offense to your assuming that I felt that Pete’s daughter should not have recieved treatment or he should have been on the hook for $1.3million. Once again you’ve proven my point about liberals. If someone disagrees with you out comes the mean spirited attacks, insults and/or vulgar comments.
    My point is plain an simple…other than making the Pundits, Frankies and Jon Splett’s of the world feel good because someone that they deem has more money than them is getting screwed, further taxing the higher income earners in this country will have little or no positive effect on healthcare or anything else. Go ahead and tax the small business person in America more money to fund this healthcare plan. In order to pay it he may have to lay off someone that is already working to pay for it. It might prevent him from hiring another employee So who are you really hurting? Close the loophole that gives “rich” people a tax break for charitable contributions. Do you know who suffers there? Not the “rich” person that people like you love to demonize…the charity suffers because the “rich” people just won’t donate the money any more! Tax investment income! Why….the nerve of people actually making money by investing in the stock market. What happens then? The “rich” people stop investing money in the market and who gets hurt when the market plunges? The millions of hard working every day Americans that have a good portion of their retirement savings invested in stock plans that’s who! All I’m saying is the next time you guys take great joy in feeling that “some rich guy” just got what they have coming to them think about the people that are really getting screwed because of it!
21. Mike In WNY says:

    June 24, 2009 at 8:58 am

    What good is a “free” MRI if you have to wait 9 months to get one? You want a perfect system that does not exist. If you re-read my position, people would be able to buy MRI coverage if they so desire. Since many MRI’s are unnecessary to begin with, the few people that would pay for one would have saved money on more affordable insurance and overall lower medical costs. Also, doctors would be able to provide free or reduced cost services combined with an increase in charitable assistance.
22. Mike In WNY says:

    June 24, 2009 at 9:00 am

    @Pete, yes, some people are greedy, however, free choice and competition are strong counterbalances that work in favor of the consumer.
23. shim says:

    June 24, 2009 at 11:09 am

    I have been reading….Your plan sounds great. However rather than insulting those that disagree with you with f-bombs and by twisting their stories to make it sound like they want innocent children to go untreated…tell me… HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS!!?? When I read comments like “Obama effing won” (Pundit), “Yup, Deal with it”, (Frankie), and my personal favorite “About time high earners contribute toward society that made them high earners” (Jon) (Society made them high earners?? What about hard work, sacrifice, and a little bit of risk taking? ) that tells me that people like you don’t care about healthcare or anything else as much as you care about people that you perceive as “rich” getting screwed.That’s all I’ve been saying. Quite frankly Pundit…rather than hurling your usual insults and off the wall diatribes…it’s you that should read….not me.
24. STEEL says:

    June 24, 2009 at 11:40 am

    My friend in Germany loves the medical system there. He never needs to worry about coverage at any time. He chooses his doctor and the doctor chooses the treatment. In the US a Insurance company accountant chooses my doctor and my treatment
25. Russell says:

    June 24, 2009 at 11:45 am

    And Obama’s not going to change that, STEEL. So that’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
26. Pete at BS says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    My uncle and aunt live in Vancouver and are Canadian citizens. My cousin, their daughter, also a Canuack lives in Toronto…..none of them have any complaints or tell any horrific stories about long waits or being unable to get the treatments that the need, when they need them.

    @Shim…Two things…it is you that are saying we want to screw the rich, and we don’t care about healthcare but care about soaking the rich. Alright, Splett may have expressed that sentiment a little as well. I, personally have said from the beginning that I am not sure how to achieve it, but would also welcome a “free market” (I know, Ray, it doesn’t exist) approach to this. My point has only been, we can figure this out if we stop the partisan bullshit.

    Ray says I don’t know shit about economics, but I do know a few things. Those poor overtaxed rich people you keep championing for make a good portion of their income through investment…..dividends are taxed at 15%, where as me, the $60K per year guy is taxed at 28%.

    Shim, you say that when we tax investments, people don’t invest…well, during the Clinton Administration when taxes were higher on the poor rich people, they invested like crazy in the tech sector…so much so, it created instant millionaires. Saying they won’t invest is silly because they are smart people and having a million extra bucks and being taxed on it is better than not having the million at all.

    You guys all (shim, Ray, Mike in WNY) get all torqued up because in your minds we are idiots because we don’t see it your way, and yet you accuse us “liberals” of exactly the same thing. In my mind, trickle down economics doesn’t work. Reagan had much higher unemployment than Clinton. Both Bushes had higher unemployment than Clinton. Clinton started with unemployment in the 7% range and steadily dropped it over 8 years to 3.9%. Bush started at 3.9% and it either increased or was level until he left office in the 6-7% range. Clinton’s higher taxes didn’t negatively effect things the way Conservs said it did, and Bush’s tax cuts certainly didn’t bring the unemployment rate down the way he touted it would.
27. Russell says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Look at the title of this post. Nothing like the Canadian or German systems is on the table. Your naive anecdotes are completely irrelevant.
28. shim says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Pete- You make some valid points and you’ll note that I didnt accuse you of being part of the “screw the rich” at all costs mentality. Not even sure if I would even put you in the “liberal” camp! Also, I don’t recall getting all “torqued up” when people disagree with me. You haven’t seen any profane, f-bombing, mean spirited rants from me.
    All I’m saying is in your haste to demonize and penalize those that you deem as “rich” be aware of the ancillary people that you may be hurting. While you make some valid points(you didn’t however address my two other scenarios regarding over taxation) you must admit based on comments like we saw from Frankie, Splett, and Pundit the “punish the rich” mentality is alive and well among most liberals. I’m sure there are some out there that would feel even a $60k per year guy like you is “rich” and is not paying enough…..
29. David Allen says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    @ Mike – You’re right, there will never be a ‘right way’ to cover 300 million people, and I have qualms about anything run by the beancounters. My point was merely that they should spend more time figuring our what and who should be covered before rushing a (half-assed) plan forward. If it’s not a good plan, it won’t matter who picks up the check.
30. Mike In WNY says:

    June 24, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    80% of Americans are satisfied with their health care, 6 in 10 worried about the result of more government involvement – latest Washington Post/ABC poll.

    Most respondents are “very concerned” that health-care reform would lead to higher costs, lower quality, fewer choices, a bigger deficit, diminished insurance coverage and more government bureaucracy. About six in 10 are at least somewhat worried about all of these factors, underscoring the challenges for lawmakers as they attempt to restructure the nation’s $2.3 trillion health-care system.

    Part of the reason so many are nervous about future changes is a fear they may lose what they currently have. More than eight in 10 said they are satisfied with the quality of care they now receive and relatively content with their own current expenses, and worry about future rising costs cuts across party lines and is amplified in the weak economy.

    That doesn’t sound like much of a mandate for Obama and Congress to eff things up more. Obama’s plan will cost more money and the country CAN’T afford it. The public option will undercut private insurance and result in all of us being subjected to health care by Washington bean counters. The next time a hurricane Katrina comes along, medical care will go down to pay for FEMA’s response.
31. The Humanist says:

    June 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm

    Shorter Mike In WNY: Let me promote a Washington Post poll that amounts to a field test of the Republican messaging opposing the public option. And also – the federal government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That’s unfair!

    We shouldn’t pursue a federally-managed health care option because it may be detrimental to the Wellpoints and Pfizers? Uh-huh….give me a fucking break. That managed-care lobbyist’s hand is sticking out of your ass, Muppet.
32. The Humanist says:

    June 24, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    sorry – second link should point here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/george-f-will-admits-public-option-will.html
33. shim says:

    June 24, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    Pundit..while not coming out and spelling it out clearly like splett and frankie..your “tax the rich” mentality is implied (in my opinion) by statements like “Obama effing won”…are you saying that you’re NOT for increased taxes on the higher income earners in this country to pay for things like healthcare and Obama’s spending plan??
34. The Humanist says:

    June 24, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    @ shim – “increased taxes on the higher income earners”?

    Otherwise known as a return to the tax levels the upper 5% were paying in the 90’s. – 36 and 39 percent – when Bill Clinton was creating 23 million jobs. As opposed to the Bush cuts to 33 and 36 percent on upper income earners, which created a grand net total of 4.8 million jobs.

    Run out all the tired, faux-populist Save-The-Rich bullshit. We tried Bushonomics for the past 8 years and got fucked worse than Gov. Sanford’s Argentinian mistress.
35. Mike Walsh says:

    June 24, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    @Shim:

    “your “tax the rich” mentality is implied (in my opinion) by statements like “Obama effing won””

    That’s his game. He implies a lot of things and then when you call him on it he comes back with: “where did I say that? Thanks.”
36. Mike Walsh says:

    June 24, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    @ Humanist:

    “We shouldn’t pursue a federally-managed health care option because it may be detrimental to the Wellpoints and Pfizers? Uh-huh….give me a fucking break. That managed-care lobbyist’s hand is sticking out of your ass, Muppet.”

    Mike and the rest of us at FREENY have consistently opposed corporate welfare but, of course, you only read and comprehend what fits your viewpoint.
37. shim says:

    June 25, 2009 at 9:23 am

    Pundit….so if Mike and I are “vomitting up”dumb allegations…would that mean that you are NOT for higher taxes on the “rich” and for LESS government involvement in our lives? Just wondering….
38. Buffalopundit says:

    June 23, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    Pete, Shim and Ray would have preferred that your daughter not receive treatment, or that you be on the hook for the entire $1.3 million. That’s the way we do it in the US, as well as in Zambia, Gabon, and Tunisia.
39. Buffalopundit says:

    June 23, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    If anybody mentions how the licensing of doctors artificially inflates the price of medical care, and in a free market any schmuck off the street can hold himself out to be a doctor, and patients would have to go to a Tripadvisor-type site or consult the BBB to find a qualified doctor who actually went to school and received training, you can stop right now because I don’t want to hear cloud cuckoo nonsense.

    The Somali healthcare model is not a winner for America.
40. Buffalopundit says:

    June 24, 2009 at 5:12 am

    Really? That was an exceptionally low blow? But when Ray or Shim or whoever the hell comes on here and speaks about how the evil working poor actually have the audacity to want portable and affordable health care plans, that’s fine – it’s fine when they whinge about socialized medicine coming to town and using other terminology that alludes to the poor soaking the pitiful, defenseless rich so that everyone is guaranteed the same standard of coverage that state, municipal, and federal workers enjoy. Ray and Shim don’t come on here and say, yes everyone should have affordable health care and here’s how you do it. But _I_ engage in low blows. People who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about, who are making shit up out of whole cloth, whose “argument” is as uninformed as that of a turtle are angry at me for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

    Mike in WNY says health insurance should be only for catastrophic coverage and major surgery. Oh, ok. So a person making $30,000 who needs an MRI needs to shell out 10% of his annual salary to get one. Maybe they can put it on a credit card that charges 25%? Yeah, what a great way to manage health care costs!

    The more I get Republicans and Libertarians arguing about health care, the more I’m in favor of a single-payer system like Canada’s and Britain’s. And I used to prefer the German or Swiss systems of mandated comprehensive coverage with state-mandated minimum coverage, subsidized policies for those unable to afford them, and at least in Switzerland, federalized by Canton. In Canada and UK, the Conservative Parties are the biggest defenders of their single-payer systems. If they were such awful and horrific systems as people would make them out to be, the people of those countries would have changed them long ago.

    I don’t want people to be bankrupted because their kid needs cancer treatment. I don’t want people to hold fundraisers because Johnny needs to pay for a new kidney. I don’t want people and doctors to be jerked around by for-profit health insurance bureaucrats, the bosses of whom make massive salaries, with bonus incentives for saving money and withholding care.

    Shim and Ray and others can take their manufactured *gasp* outrage! and maybe stuff the jar at their pizzerias with $10 bills so the kid pictured on the jar can get the bone marrow transplant for his Leukemia.
41. Buffalopundit says:

    June 24, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Shim, no one’s talking about taxing anybody any more. Fucking read something.
42. Buffalopundit says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:33 pm

    Shim, I didn’t realize that Frankie, Splett, and I were in charge of setting up the healthcare reform plan for the United States. Also, I don’t see exactly how “Obama effing won” translates into, “bend over and take the tax hike up the ass, richers!”

    Perhaps it’s an anagram.
43. Buffalopundit says:

    June 24, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Shim – please cite my “punish the rich” statement. Thanks.
44. Buffalopundit says:

    June 25, 2009 at 5:01 am

    @Mike Walsh: Your “game” is to lie and say that I “constantly advocate government interference in people’s lives right here at home?”

    Then, when I twice ask you to please cite one specific example of government interference in your life that I have advocated – not generalizations like “welfare” or “doctors who practice medicine should be licensed” – but a specific thing that I have advocated for that directly affects your ability to live, love, work, play, and pray, you can’t. Because people like you and people like Shim like to vomit up dumb allegations, and then can’t really back it up.