• I would suggest to finally ban the crazy (anti-gay) troll.

    The scientific journal that published it says the study should never have been published as peer-reviewed. That should be enough. Of course, Regnerus isn’t exactly the worst professor allowed to keep his position. Think Robert George or John Yoo.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/06/16/why-mark-regnerus-study-shouldnt-matter-even-if-it-were-the-most-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

  • It’s a two-party system because of the voting system. Get over it.

  • Do you have any real evidence? (A list of scandals of rappers and sport stars isn’t evidence.)

  • Medicare is single payer, not a public option. I don’t see anything in the article that contradicts that state public options and state non-profit plans are as viable as a public option.

    It’s not ideal, but it’s certainly not as definitively bad as some want it to be.

  • Germany also has for-profit insurers with many problems. That’s no difference.

    The fact that states can do away with the mandate or provide their own non-profit plan is as much a cost control as the public option. Your example depends on the exchanges not being effective in respect to what they are supposed to do.

    Furthermore the insurance companies would have to increase spending on healthcare as much as their profits. Maybe they already know how to do that, but there are still various options to counter that.

    Once the system is established and some states have demonstrated that their alternative program works, it should be easier to move to a real, federal public option or single payer.

    It not a left vs right issue…. The issue is corporate power imposing its will on the governed by buying law essentially usurping the will of the governed. Psalongo is correct. They never listened to US. Only the corporations!!!

    Virtually every law is bought today. And negotiating a cease-fire is not the same as passing an actually desired law.

    As long as there is no strong public financing and disclosure, you need to convince your members of Congress to vote against their donors, after all.

  • You may not believe they’ll work, but there are measures intended to control cost. The institute established by the ACA is even a copy of the recent German healthcare reform.

    @tanbark

    That is, unless you’re a stockholder in Humana or Wellpoint, etc…

    No, that’s not necessarily good for you as a stockholder. There will be quite a few new costumers that aren’t desired by them. Higher volume alone doesn’t imply any benefit for the stockholder, except *maybe* lower risk. The ACA also includes measures that could reduce profitability. And the ACA could even result in the big private insurers losing customers to potential state programs (Vermont) and state-controlled non-profit plans.

    Profitability could easily be reduced by the elimination of pay-out caps and preexisting conditions as well as by the requirement to spend most of the revenue on actual healthcare.

    Also, you can pay the tax. Given the increases for Medicaid and other public health measures, it’s certainly justified. Even if you can pay for your own medical needs now, that can easily change and then both the state and other insurance customers would have to shoulder it.

    The mandate could bring cost down alone by the fact that overcharging insurers and Medicare would be less justified.

    Oh and thinking about the accusation of fascism: The whole Western world effectively forces (at least as much as the ACA “forces” anyone) people to buy at least some insurance products. The whole Western world is “fascist”.

  • I’m neither a Obamabot nor have I am been “cut to the ribbons”.

    All I see are a lot of totally unfounded claims. The single fact that the ACA allows states to implement their own program that can be single payer or simply put a state-controlled non-profit plan in the exchange, shows that most of the claims of the anti-ACA folks here are bullshit.

    The argument that the ACA is fascism or neo-fascism is ridiculous and the supporters here seem to be conspiracy theorists.

    @cassiodorus:
    Germany’s system is certainly very similar the ACA, just without exchanges. You have to be insured by either public insurance funds which are roughly equivalent to non-profits (including the problems) or private for-profit insurers. Nothing prevents US states to found their own AOKs under the ACA.

    But to be clear: Germany’s system isn’t exactly the best of the European system. I just argue that the rambling here is largely nonsense. The act was an improvement to the status quo.

    Oh, a question: Were some of Roosevelt’s programs also fascism or neo-fascism? He also forced people into the market and the right didn’t exactly take it well.

  • That’s not fascism, not even remotely. The word has a meaning. You should think about growing up.

    You forgot to mention why the mandate is necessary. Your argument is nothing but illogical. The fact that you have to pay for health insurance to a private company isn’t really different than if you have to pay to the government. Single payer and a public option are effectively a mandate with a public product.

    It’s not just a “financial product”, it’s a very special one, health insurance. Single payer is also just a social insurance, even if some people don’t want to call it that way.

    Obamacare isn’t simply a mandate for the insured, but also for the insurers. Isn’t it funny, how the nutters always forget that part? Among these restrictions are measures to reduce the profit of the insurers can make.

    Moreover, states can do something against the mandate. That’s also in the law.

    Even if your inital claim were true, it wouldn’t be fascism. Again, the term has a meaning and even a loose interpretation doesn’t fit. The tax isn’t that high, given that being uninsured means that the public has the risk of paying for your costs, a negative externality.

    And states already make you purchase private insurances. So stressing that the Federal government does it, is strange.

  • Germany has a similar system for a long time. Public insurance funds are not really different to non-profits (they aren’t much less corrupt, for example).

    Of course, single payer would be better, but you still have to pass it and it is not sensible to wait. What is the evidence against incrementalism?

    I see the same claim in the European fiscal/monetary hostage crisis: The Northern countries claim that easy fixes would make reform impossible in Southern Europe. I doubt that having it bad makes people long for reform, it also increases fears and the desire to keep what you already have.

  • Obamacare is not fascism. Everyone that claims that is obviously clueless and delusional.

  • Medicare for all wouldn’t have passed (even the buy-in for people above 55 was shot down) and waiting for the collapse of the old system just means that people continue with the plan Alan Grayson described (“be rich or die quickly”).

  • He seems to have some serious problems. Oh, and I guess it has to do with the other battles as he cited your past “offenses” (judging by the many things that I’ve read from you, smears). Maybe he has some anti-T lesbian friends.

  • I hope they’ll fatally shoot themselves.

  • Then please explain what you are referring to?

  • What are you talking about? If you want to have a more reasonable criminal system, many would agree. But that can’t mean that a case like this is completely ignored at first. Maybe the fact that Zimmerman had his own issues should be considered, but that can’t mean that he walks off without trial.

  • I’ve heard the claims before, just that the evidence never supports the claim. I suppose that you didn’t come to the conclusion yourself, but have some source for it. Could you provide it?

    I think that there isn’t much doubt about the racist aspect in the behavior of Zimmerman. The claims that were made to make him look non-racist are stinking, on the other hand.

    And you try to connect Martin with being a serial criminal, without any evidence, on questionable claims from obscure sources. You are certainly racist.

  • It should also be mentioned that there were no historians necessary to classify the Nazis as right-wingers. That’s where they positioned themselves in German politics. The few leftist aspects and politicians they incorporated were done to attract more followers among workers.

    It’s also joke to conclude that putting community interest before personal interest is leftist. That only means they were authoritarians. And in the Nazis’ case, you can clearly see that they were right-wing fascists.

    The misconception likely is a result that the anti-tax and property libertarian frauds are the only libertarians that matter in US politics.

  • You are a liar. I just take two paragraphs:

    Why is this being called a “racial” incident…? A resident sees a stranger wandering around at night ducking in and out of doorways behind the homes in a gated, private community that’s had a rash of recent burglaries and it’s NOT supposed to raise suspicions?! Never mind the fact that neither person involved was white.

    Zimmerman is definitively white. Yes, you can be Hispanic and white. Furthermore are the details more than wrong. The reason Zimmerman even considered Martin as a possible burglar was that Martin was black. That Martin may have started leaving the street and sidewalk is understandable if you consider that he was followed by a crazy guy.

    Your claims about Martin’s behavior are suspect. You want to paint his killing as justified. That is clear.

    Why are folks calling community watch patrol in this case “stalking”…

    There was no watch patrol, only one crazy guy. And he stalked Martin. Moreover, if members of a patrol stalk someone, it’s still stalking. (You don’t need to be a police officer to do racial profiling. That doesn’t depend on the person doing it.)

    You are a dishonest, racist POS.

  • Yes, skinla is quite obviously an anti-Semitic idiot. Zimmerman is a German name (like many “Jewish names”). And it isn’t one that was typical for Jewish families. “Zimmermann” means carpenter.

    Of course, a substantial share of US citizens has some German ancestry, including many in the judicial system.

  • A little bit cosmic irony for the sprayer … I’m a bad person.

  • Load More