Coping With Government Run Health Care

A blogger recounts his experience dealing with government health care. Be careful what you wish for.

Comments

[Bob]

The case in question is about a person who describes himself as follows:

"I am active partisan and I'm a Goth and I enjoy studying policy enough to understand that I want to work in a future Republican White House Chief of Staff's office (hint, hint), by way of working in a Think Tank, an LA/LD on the Hill or in a Lobbying firm."

Apparently, our wing-nut Goth suffers from bipolar disorder and is out of work until he can land one of those plumb wing-nut welfare positions he so desperately seeks. In the meantime, due to our country's lack of true universal healthcare coverage, his only recourse is to try to get on California's Medi-Cal program, which is means-tested. If I read his poorly explained saga correctly, he was denied Medi-Cal coverage because he already received disability coverage and was therefore ineligible:

"My caseworker at Medi-cal then said to see my Doctor would cost $200 (and more to get my perscription). And for my pills? $400. I explained to my caseworker that my disability barely covers both. She didn't care and the process to appeal would take over six months."

A few sentences down, he says,

"My disability funds or my pills? I chose my funds."

If I read this correctly, this person was never even GIVEN Medi-Cal coverage because he wasn't qualified. He would have to give up his disability funds to receive coverage under Medi-Cal. He chose to keep his disability instead. And this is supposed to be a damning indictment of government-run healthcare? Wing nuts never fail to try to mislead.

As anyone should know, in fact, "government-run" healthcare like Medicare and the VA receive much higher marks from their customers than private healthcare plans:

"The Commonwealth Fund/Health Affairs study compared the experiences of elderly Medicare beneficiaries with those of people under age 65 with employer-based, private health insurance from 2001 to 2007.

Even though Medicare beneficiaries were older and sicker, their experiences were better across the board, with better access, higher-rated quality of care, fewer problems with medical bills, and higher satisfaction with coverage at lower cost.

The HHS commissioned survey in June also cited substantially higher satisfaction among Medicare patients than among those with private insurance -- 56 percent of enrollees in traditional Medicare give Medicare a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale, compared to only 40 percent of Americans in private plans."

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2009/july/medicare-points-the-way-to-genuine-reform.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

Anyone who wants to dispute this is free to present their own surveys, or to try to make an honest argument rather than a dishonest, misleading, cherry-picked bit of nonsense like the one Riehl presents.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, the dishonesty here comes from the liberal Bob, as to be expected.

What Bob is doing, typical of leftists, is comparing ONE program with one level of coverage -- Medicare -- with ALL other private insurers with multiple ranges of coverage.

This is a bit like claiming that, since owners of brand-new Chevrolets are more satisfied with their cars than the "average" of car owners over the range of barely-running clunkers to BMWs, Chevrolets are superior cars. Once one digs into more detail and starts comparing Medicare to similar private plans, Medicare doesn't look so good.

This is one of the simplest and most obvious ways to conflate data by using "averages"; anyone with any intelligence or experience with surveys would spot that immediately. But again, Bob is merely an Obama syncophant who has been brainwashed to believe that criticizing or disagreeing with Obama is racist, and thus will mindlessly repeat anything he's told.

And of course, Bob quotes a source that simply lies.

"simplified administration costing only about 3 percent in overhead compared to overhead five to nine times higher for private insurers"

What that ignores is that, since Medicare doesn't have to pay taxes, that's an immediate break of over 15 - 20%.

Next, Medicare does not pay for collection or billing expenses; that is covered by the IRS, which then assesses it to taxpayers -- probably an additional 3 - 5% of overhead.

Furthermore, Medicare does not pay its own building rent or operating expenses -- again, these are covered by the GAO as an expense to taxpayers and represent an additional 3 - 5% of overhead.

Furthermore, the liars in the article forget to mention that of Medicare's annual expenditures of $600 billion, over 10% is lost to fraud.

So let's see; compared to private insurance with an overhead of 15 - 27%, or so they claim, Medicare's actual overhead, were it required to actually pay its expenses instead of stealing from working Americans, would be 3% in "overhead" + 3% in billing expenses + 3% in facilities and actual overhead expenses + 10% in fraud + 25% in corporate taxes -- or a total of 44% in overhead, nearly twice the WORST private plan.

The answer why is obvious. Government is not held accountable for waste; private businesses are. Private enterprises that run like government, in which overpaid bureaucrats with gold-plated benefit packages waste money gratuitously, go bankrupt.

Of course, the reason Obama syncophants like to tell this lie is because, since they don't pay taxes, they never see these expenses. For Bob, who lives on welfare checks, he will never pay a dime in increased taxes; all that will be at the expense of the productive people with jobs and educations of which he's jealous. What he's too unintelligent to realize is that taxing others out of existence so that you can have freebies ultimately kills off the tax stream.

[Bob]

"Of course, the reason Obama syncophants like to tell this lie is because, since they don't pay taxes, they never see these expenses. For Bob, who lives on welfare checks, he will never pay a dime in increased taxes"

Classic North Dallas. Just make sh#t up instead of even attempting an honest discussion. I wonder what's in it for him? LOL.

[Bob]

By the way, here's what happens to political movements that continually put the profits of big business ahead of the interests of regular Americans:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/poll-gops-favorability-at-its-worst-in-a-decade.php?ref=fpa

"A new CNN poll has some really bad news for the Republican Party, with their favorability number reaching its lowest in a decade.

Only 36% of people view the GOP favorably, with an outright majority of 54% viewing them unfavorably. By comparison, the Democratic Party is at 53% favorable to 41% unfavorable -- hardly a good omen for the Republicans if they want to make significant gains in 2010."

[North Dallas Thirty]

And watch as the silly Bob immediately flip-flops and starts screaming about how polls mean nothing.

http://moelane.com/2009/10/20/the-october-rasmussen-trust-numbers-ten-for-ten/

Meanwhile, that's an interesting statement about "the profits of big business". In the normal world, profitable businesses are good; they provide jobs for people, economic development for the communities in which those people live, a means of supporting other businesses like stores where those workers shop, products that consumers need, and tax revenues for government.

But in the Obama Party world that you occupy, Bob, all profit is evil. Businesses are bad if they are successful. The Obama Party itself states, as you made clear, that it opposes businesses that are profitable and successful.

Again, your rants, like those of your Barack Obama, are nothing more than the shrieks of jealous moochers who don't want to work and are envious of those who are successful. In the poisoned minds of little narcissistic children like yourself and Barack Obama, it is a good thing for the United States to demonize and preach that people who run successful businesses and make money are evil.

[Bob]

"Meanwhile, that's an interesting statement about "the profits of big business". In the normal world, profitable businesses are good; they provide jobs for people, economic development for the communities in which those people live, a means of supporting other businesses like stores where those workers shop, products that consumers need, and tax revenues for government."

The health insurance industry is an often unethical one that needs to do things like deny coverage (rape is now a pre-existing condition) and refuse to pay healthcare costs so it can give multi-million dollar salaries to its honchos. Medicare and the VA prove that the function of private insurance companies can be fulfilled BETTER and MORE EFFICIENTLY by a government-run system, without the need to skim profits to pay greedy executives. The statistics prove that Medicare and the VA have more satisfied customers than private insurance, their costs are rising more slowly, and they deliver their services more efficiently than private insurers.

Republican lawmakers and wing nut talking heads are in the pocket of the insurance industry, so of course they'll say anything to protect industry profits, even at the expense of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year. Proponents of healthcare reform have no such conflict of interest. The healthcare industry and associated conservative think-tanks pay big bucks to employ professional liars like Betsy McCaughey to shill for them in the public sphere. Then there are others like NDT who inexplicably whore themselves for free.

[North Dallas Thirty]

On cue, Barack Obama's little mouthpiece Bob starts demonizing everyone who works in the health insurance industry as "unethical".

But unfortunately, Barack Obama has already demonstrated how he considers fraud, lying, and tax evasion to be downright ethical.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376720192072820.html?mod=rss_most_viewed_week

Meanwhile, while we watch Bob scream about "rape", we should remember that he and his Barack Obama fully support and endorse rape, especially of children, when committed by Obama Party members and supporters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/29/video-whoopi-says-polanski-didnt-commit-rape-rape/

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Republican lawmakers and wing nut talking heads are in the pocket of the insurance industry, so of course they'll say anything to protect industry profits, even at the expense of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year."

Ah, yes, that old debunked study.

Perhaps it's time you actually read some facts, Bob.

""They are trying to create these factoids that they can beat opponents over the head with," Mr. Milloy said. "They interviewed 9,000 people between 1988 and 1994 and asked, 'Do you have health insurance?' and if you die at some point in the future, they assume your death was caused by the fact you didn’t have insurance during that time you were interviewed."

"That kind of stuff is classic junk science," Mr. Milloy added.

John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, agreed that the study was flawed. “The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death,” he said in a statement."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/17/junk-science-expert-sounds-alarm-insurance-study/

In short, these people could have had insurance at the time they died, but the dishonest Obama Party "scientists" assumed they didn't. Even if they HAD had insurance, the dishonest Obama "scientists" would still have stated they didn't -- since they didn't check or care about insurance status at actual time of death.

Now, Bob, repeat your talking points and defend the "scientists". State that it doesn't matter whether people had health insurance when they died; the fact that they had not had health insurance at some point previously means that health insurance automatically caused their death.

Or go run away.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And one more thing....turns out the same "scientists" that Bob quotes, again ideological supporters of Barack Obama who will say or do anything to support Barack Obama, released a "study" about medical bills causing bankruptcies.

Unfortunately, turns out that again, their zeal to support their Barack Obama led them to twist the facts.

For example:

"We developed two summary measures of medical bankruptcy. Under the rubric “Major Medical Bankruptcy” we included debtors who either (1) cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy, or (2) reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past years, or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness/injury, or (4) mortgaged a home to pay medical bills."

In other words, if you paid any more than $1,000 out of pocket for medical bills in the past two years, medical bills caused your bankruptcy. Nothing else mattered; it was that $1,001.

But it gets better.

"Our more inclusive category, “Any Medical Bankruptcy,” included debtors who cited any of the above, or addiction, or uncontrolled gambling, or birth, or the death of a family member."

In other words, if you chose to do drugs or gamble away your money and went bankrupt as a result, THE OBAMA PARTY CLAIMS MEDICAL BILLS CAUSED YOUR BANKRUPTCY.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

These are the lies that the Obama Party pushes. Barack Obama and his puppets like Bob who choose to do drugs and who gamble away their money want to levy taxes on the rest of us to pay for THEIR health coverage.

[Bob]

And North Dallas comes back quoting the wingnuttiest Washington Times, who did a story on another professional liar, Steve Milloy, previously known for his global warming denialism. People like Milloy and McCaughey are paid whores who do the bidding of private industry for money. Isn't it as obvious as can be? It's all about protecting industry profits regardless of the price that the rest of society has to pay.

Let's see, we can go with objective Harvard scientists who say that lack of health insurance causes around 44,000 deaths per year, or we can listen to a paid whore like Steve Milloy, quoted in the Wing Nut Times. Gosh, that's a tough one. Which side would North Dallas choose? OK, I'm choosing the OTHER side.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Let's see, we can go with objective Harvard scientists"

Problem is, had you actually read that article, you would realize that they're not.

"David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a universal, single-payer national health program, and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, talks with the Foundation’s Jackie Judd about how a single payer model will lead to universal coverage, the obstacles to achieving it and the implications of such a plan on health care providers and the insurance market."

And what about "Dr." Woolhandler?

"As part of her ongoing efforts to increase care for the underserved, Dr. Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program in 1986. The group is a single-issue organization that advocates single-payer national health insurance for all Americans."

http://www.pnhp.org/multimedia/stephanie_woolhandler_shares_her_views_on_universal_healthcare.php

What a surprise. Bob claims individuals who happen to be co-founders of a lobbying group whose avowed goal is to force single-payer health care on Americans by any means necessary as "objective".

It just demonstrates again how liberals are so completely ignorant and easily manipulated. A simple Web search would have revealed these individuals' affiliations -- heck, it was even spelled out in the article Bob didn't read -- but Bob, as befits a typical liberal Obama drone with neither the intellectual capacity or curiosity to check such facts, fails to do so. Truly an indictment of liberalism and a demonstration of how liberals tend to be little more than ignorant talking-point spewers. There is no need to engage them in debate or discussion, because they are neither acquainted with the facts or capable of deviating in the least from the talking points provided them by their Barack Obama.

[ET]

Bob, you're an idiot and NDT proves it with his every post. Please don't go away...watching you shamelessly display you ignorance in the encounter is very entertaining.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, another nice thorough debunking of Bob's "objective" studies conducted by those Obama Party members trying to push single-payer on Americans can be found here.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/09/21/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death/

Long story short, these "studies" work by finding people who are uninsured at the beginning of the survey, seeing if they die over the survey period, and then claiming that, in every case, lack of insurance caused their death --- without verifying whether the person ever got or had health insurance at the time of their death.

To put it bluntly, if I don't have insurance today, but get it tomorrow and die nine years later fully insured, these paid Obama shills claim my death nine years from now was caused by not having health insurance.

Only a fool could consider that valid. But for the Barack Obama Party, which ignores facts and logic and avoids substantive debate in favor of calling people racists and Nazis, it's good enough.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"People like Milloy and McCaughey are paid whores who do the bidding of private industry for money."

Which is, apparently, not a problem to Barack Obama.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/02/the-obama-lobbyist-ban-and-tom-daschle-the-silliness-continues.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4555416

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6735898&page=1

So tell us, Bob, if you dislike these "paid whores" so much, why do you support and endorse them having high-ranking policy positions in the Obama administration?

[Lala]

I love Steve Milloy, especially when he goes after the DDT scandal.
Betsy McCaughey killed the Clinton health care bill by exposing it. She is a champion of eliminating MRSA from hospitals and should receive a medal for her work.
And why is North Dallas Thirty so smart?

[templar knight]

ND30, that series of posts is truly one of the best eviserations I've ever witnessed. Touche, my man, touche!

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Whos rich white guys are better? Because anyone who is so stupid as to think that both sides aren't the bitches of rich people/corporations should not be allowed to vote........What a minute. If that were true, McCain would have slipped through a crack and obie would be organizing...sorry I brought truth into the equasion.

[Bob]

North Dallas does what all wingnuts do when confronted with scientific, factual evidence. Throw mud and quote people who get paid by industry to tell lies. The objective, as always, is to protect some industry's profits, like the oil and gas industry with its global warming denialism, or the insurance industry in its attempts to deny the factual evidence that proves that government-run healthcare programs like Medicare and the VA do a better job than private industry. It's so simple.

Wing nuts have been duped -- because they ARE so easily duped, after all -- into thinking that their job is to fight to protect the profits of an unethical big business, even though it may well come back to haunt them some day when they find themselves in a healthcare fix. On the other hand, even though I have a good job in a DIFFERENT industrial sector and have a pretty good company-sponsored plan, I think the smart and humane thing to do is make sure that everyone in this society has decent, affordable healthcare. Not because doing so will necessarily improve my own life, but because it's the right thing to do. Just like paying for the police and the fire department is the right thing to do.

But if you wing nuts prefer to defend a status quo that denies people coverage because their babies are a little too chubby or a little too skinny, or because they were raped, then I guess that just shows what wing nuts are made of. Considering how many conservatives NOW complain about how bad the Bush administration was, it makes me wonder if they'd even want to live in a world that was designed according to their professed ideals. I kinda doubt it.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Wow. Didn't realize Dodd is a conservative or that so many demonrats were actually conservatives.

"Using data released by the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 1, the nonpartisan group found that insurance interests favored Democratic presidential candidates, who received 54% of their largesse compared with 46% for Republicans.

Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., who has since dropped his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, received the most insurance-related contributions at $775,512. Second on the list at $749,245 was former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who left the race for the Republican nomination last week and endorsed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Then from that right-wing hate rag LA Times we find out that Barak told yet another lie during the campaign. Pretending to be a conservative repugnican to get to those bastards in financial industries

"In the 2008 election cycle, the list of the top recipients of donations from the financial services, insurance and real estate sectors (all likely to be affected in varying degrees by the legislation) included the leading presidential candidates.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money rained down also on the top members of Congress who are steering the legislation. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a candidate for president during the primaries, received $6 million. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), received $720,000 this year."

[Lala]

It's not oil and gas causing so-called global warning, it's BIOFUELS.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006649.html

[Bob]

Actually, Wahoo Willie, you're right that there ARE some notable Democrats who've taken insurance industry money and are actively working to thwart meaningful healthcare reform. I'm thinking of someone like Max Baucus, or Blanche Lincoln, or Kent Conrad. You know, the "Blue Dogs." And supposedly Rahm Emanuel is a Blue Dog too. Certain of these people, in league with a UNANIMOUS Republican caucus opposed to any reform that would cut into industry profits, have made things a lot more difficult. I think these are cases where a relative handful of bought-off Democrats have put their own interests ahead of those of the entire country, and I think it's disgraceful. But Democrats, in general, are pro-reform, while Republicans, almost without exception, are completely against it. As it was proven during the Bush administration, the only "reform" the Republicans are interested in is giving industry an even more powerful stranglehold on the healthcare market than they already had.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And I think it's once again a time for a good reminder of what Bob actually is.

""Moochers" demand others' earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves, however, they curse the producers who make that help possible and are jealous and resentful of the talented on whom they depend. They are ultimately as destructive as the looters— destroying the productive through guilt, and appealing to "moral right" while enabling the "lawful" looting performed by governments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

To Bob, all profit is evil, all success is evil; any business that does well is "unethical", and anyone who would dare disagree with Bob is a murderer. As we see above, Bob insists that only those who repeat the mantras of the god-king Obama are right, and that anything that would contradict Obama or demonstrate Obama wrong is "lies".

If Bob wishes to help others, let him do it himself. The fact that he does not and instead tries to steal from others is clear proof that his is not concern for the poor, but an attempt to use and exploit them to destroy those productive people and businesses whose success he resents. Bob demonizes and screams at those who refuse to follow his childish demands for others to pay his bills and assume his responsibility. He refuses to work, yet demands he receive all the rewards of it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

The more you read Bob, the more his moocherism shines through.

"I think these are cases where a relative handful of bought-off Democrats have put their own interests ahead of those of the entire country, and I think it's disgraceful."

Notice how Bob screams and whines that these people are nothing, they're disgusting, they're disgraceful, they've never done anything good or productive in their lives, they're evil and corrupt.....all because they disagree with him.

The only thing Bob and Barack Obama know how to do is to demonize others. They have no ideas, no intellect, no creativity; the only thing they know how to do is to scream and namecall.

[Bob]

Now we've reached the inevitable point in the discussion where North Dallas Thirty takes leave of the real world and sets off into his wing nut fantasy world, where everything works just like he says. A gainfully employed person like me becomes a "moocher," a person who's happily employed in an industry that doesn't have to profit by screwing over its customers becomes someone who thinks that success and profit are "evil." When almost every email I send to the Obama administration criticizes them in one way or another, nonetheless, Obama becomes my "god-king."

And then the icing on the cake is a link to a wikipedia entry about Atlas Shrugged, a virtual Bible for every self-important wing-nut pseudo-intellectual putz like NDT, followed by more fantasies about me expecting other people to pay my bills.

That's why it's impossible to have an honest, good-faith discussion about anything with North Dallas Thirty. It ALWAYS gets to this point sooner or later. But it does at least prove that when he's pushed to the limit, he's basically a dishonest and dishonorable person, which I guess is worth taking note of in and of itself. I take note of it, and I'm glad it's not MY problem.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, Bob, we've reached the inevitable point in the discussion where you resort to namecalling and trying to smear other people because you lost.

You are a moocher. You do expect other people to pay your bills. You are not employed because you claim all business is evil. And, as demonstrated above, with links:

-- You quote biased, scientifically-incompetent "studies" produced by Obama syncophants that claim bankruptcies due to medical bills and drug abuse are caused by "medical bills" and others that claim that if you ever did not have health insurance, your death was caused by that whether you were ultimately insured or not

-- You rail against lobbyists while endorsing and supporting high-ranking ones in the Obama administration

-- You call all people in the health insurance industry "unethical" while endorsing and supporting proven tax cheats like Rangel, Geither, Solis, and Sebelius

-- You scream that all profits of "big business" are bad

-- You whine about rape while endorsing and supporting those who drug and rape underage children

It is no surprise that you are welfare-dependent and bitter towards the successful and productive, Bob. Businesses have no interest in hiring people like yourself who believe everyone else is wrong, who namecall at the drop of a hat, who publicly mock and belittle peoples' religious beliefs and skin color, who insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a liar, and who, as you do, continually demands of others what he refuses to do himself.

[Bob]

"It is no surprise that you are welfare-dependent and bitter towards the successful and productive, Bob."

North Dallas Thirty is dishonest and dishonorable, and false statements like the one above proves it. I rest my case.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, what Bob does here is the classic demonstration of the destructive and hateful nature of the moocher.

Bob claims he wants to "help" people who "can't get insurance". Fine and dandy, right?

But how does he do it? He slanders everyone who works in the health insurance industry. He calls them all criminals, murderers, monsters. He attacks their jobs, their livelihoods, their characters. He claims that they are only interested in "profits", that they steal from others, and that they deliberately set out to ruin peoples' lives. He claims that anyone who disagrees with him is a "paid whore", that they are lying, and that they have been "bought off".

THAT is the destructive nature of the moocher. They claim to be interested in helping people -- but the only way in which they can do that is to destroy others. They brag about how "supportive" they are -- even as they demonize and tear down those who they dislike.

If Bob truly wishes to help others, he has the means within his own pocket. But instead of doing that, he sets off to slander and demean hundreds, thousands, MILLIONS of people in the healthcare industry as nothing more than murderers, rape supporters, and monsters.

Can it be any more obvious that Bob has no interest in helping others?

[North Dallas Thirty]

North Dallas Thirty EXPECTS to be called "dishonest and dishonorable" by moochers like you, Bob, who piously claim to care about others while systematically claiming that an entire industry full of people is evil and corrupt, that everyone who works for a health insurance company is an unethical murderer and monster, and who insists that anyone who in any way disagrees with them or criticizes what they do is a "paid whore" who has been "bought off".

The nature of one's enemies is an excellent indicator of one's value. Given what you espouse, mine is rather golden.

[Bob]

"But how does he do it? He slanders everyone who works in the health insurance industry. He calls them all criminals, murderers, monsters."

Oh, now you're just being melodramatic, North Dallas. You know I never said anything of the sort. You really ruin any credibility you might have by going off on these fantasy tirades. Isn't it kind of silly for you -- who knows almost nothing about me -- to make up things about me that I would be in the unique position of knowing for certain are false? Is that supposed to somehow strengthen your position, that you prove yourself to be a desperate fabricator to the person who knows the truth better than anyone? As debating tactics go, it seems kinda lame.

But you know what, North Dallas? I think there's something too dysfunctional about these exchanges. I don't consider you to be an enemy by any means, even though these mutual insults get pretty nasty at times. At the risk of being insulted once again when I've let my guard down, I just want to go out on a limb and wish you well. This is just a way to pass the time for me, and I can't imagine taking it too personally. So you have a good evening, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. I'm gonna sign off for now. So long . . .

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Actually, Wahoo Willie, you're right that there ARE some notable Democrats who've taken insurance industry money......."

Yep right again. One of those "notable demonrats" is our new president.

[Bob]

"Yep right again. One of those "notable demonrats" is our new president."

To be honest, WW, all three candidates for president (Obama, Clinton and McCain) received roughly equal contributions, as your link noted. It's not unusual for big corporations to split their contributions like that, presumably so they can claim favored status no matter WHO wins. So that, in and of itself, doesn't seem like a problem.

But I do have to say, I'm frustrated that Obama seems to be pushing a somewhat watered-down version of healthcare reform. Personally, I think that a single-payer system -- perhaps one based on the already-in-place Medicare system -- would have been the best, most efficient and cost-effective way to go. But Obama and Rahm have apparently been making deals with big industry players which has give us the current compromise plan. They further seem to not favor the "public option," which to a lot of people seems like the only way to keep those industry players from gouging their customers the way they're doing now. Fortunately -- to me -- Congressional leaders like Pelosi and Reid seem to now be pushing back against that, and it looks like some kind of public option is likely to pass. The devil's in the details, though.

As far as conservative critics go, however, I'd think that these people who I'd characterize as "sell-outs" are acting more like Republicans typically do. In that regard, you'd think that Obama's pursuit of a compromise system that maintains the role of private insurers -- rather than a single-payer system -- would have gotten the approval of at least SOME Republicans. But I'm convinced that the GOP's attitude is total bad-faith, and that they're simply hoping for Obama to fail regardless of the merits of this or that approach, and regardless of what failure would mean for millions of Americans who will continue to suffer under the current dysfunctional system.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And now it's time for Bob to put on his "poor little victim me" mask and try to whine about how mistreated he's been, all the while continuing the insults.

Meanwhile, Bob, let's review what you do:

-- You quote biased, scientifically-incompetent "studies" produced by Obama syncophants that claim bankruptcies due to medical bills and drug abuse are caused by "medical bills" and others that claim that if you ever did not have health insurance, your death was caused by that whether you were ultimately insured or not

-- You rail against lobbyists while endorsing and supporting high-ranking ones in the Obama administration

-- You call all people in the health insurance industry "unethical" while endorsing and supporting proven tax cheats like Rangel, Geither, Solis, and Sebelius

-- You scream that all profits of "big business" are bad

-- You whine about rape while endorsing and supporting those who drug and rape underage children

-- You insist that anyone who disagrees with you is a "paid whore" who has been "bought off"

-- You call anyone who dares to criticize your Obama a "wingnut" and insist that they are mentally ill

In short, you're appealing to a morality that you've convincingly demonstrated you don't practice. It's a pity that Obama Party members like yourself are so bitter, so hateful, and so destructive that you can't develop positive and creative ways to add value, instead of having to tear down and destroy others to make yourself feel better.

[Bob]

"And now it's time for Bob to put on his "poor little victim me" mask and try to whine about how mistreated he's been, all the while continuing the insults."

See, North Dallas, I expected that even the smallest and most benign gesture of detente by me would receive a gratuitously hostile response from you. That's who you apparently are. Sure, I can dish it out, too. But beyond a certain point I recognize how pointless anger and hostility is, and try to rein it back. For you, however, there's apparently no limit. Again, it's your problem, not mine. Have fun in your miserable world of political zealotry. I can't be bothered to "go there" right now.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I know you did, Bob; that's because moochers like yourself, when cornered, try to whine and scream about how awful everyone else is for mistreating them and make others feel guilty.

But unfortunately, that unravels when one repeats and demonstrates what the moocher actually does, as we see in your case:

-- You quote biased, scientifically-incompetent "studies" produced by Obama syncophants that claim bankruptcies due to medical bills and drug abuse are caused by "medical bills" and others that claim that if you ever did not have health insurance, your death was caused by that whether you were ultimately insured or not

-- You rail against lobbyists while endorsing and supporting high-ranking ones in the Obama administration

-- You call all people in the health insurance industry "unethical" while endorsing and supporting proven tax cheats like Rangel, Geither, Solis, and Sebelius

-- You scream that all profits of "big business" are bad

-- You whine about rape while endorsing and supporting those who drug and rape underage children

-- You insist that anyone who disagrees with you is a "paid whore" who has been "bought off"

-- You call anyone who dares to criticize your Obama a "wingnut" and insist that they are mentally ill

For some reason, Bob, people tend not to feel guilty when it's demonstrated how hateful and amoral moochers like yourself are. Indeed, they tend to get upset, because moochers like you willingly and deliberately pervert a moral code that you have no intention of following yourself to force other people to inconvenience themselves.

As an example, Bob, your problem is that you honestly don't see any issue with the people who write the tax laws for the country, who enforce the tax laws for the country, and who demand even more taxes, like Rangel, Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius, and Solis, being cheats themselves, because they're Barack Obama supporters. Indeed, when that fact is pointed out, like the classic moocher, you and your Barack Obama scream that anyone who does so is a racist, how they're evil, how they're "paid whores", and so forth -- trying to guilt people with a moral code that Barack Obama himself refuses to follow.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And here's another good one.

Remember how moocher Bob and Barack Obama were screaming about executive pay above?

Guess what they're giving their own executives.

"The government-controlled mortgage finance company is giving CFO Ross Kari compensation worth as much as $5.5 million. That includes an almost $2 million cash signing bonus and a generous salary that could top $2.3 million."

The entertaining part:

"At Fifth Third, Kari's yearly salary was $580,000 and he received a $100,000 signing bonus. He also received a restricted stock grant of 20,000 shares and 40,000 stock appreciation rights, both of which would have vested after four years but were terminated once he left the Cincinnati-based bank.

Had he stayed at Fifth Third, he would not have been able to cash out of his equity compensation until the bank repaid the $3.4 billion in TARP funds it received."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9B3HEI00.htm