Page 20 of 76
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:25 am
by thibodeaux
TheCatt wrote:Here's my healthcare plan:
$100 for running shoes for everyone every six months.
1 annual checkup to tell people what to work on.
Taxes on tobacco and fatty foods to pay for it.
Running is bad for you.
Eating animal fat is good for you.
Of course, the problem is, the government agrees with YOUR wrong ideas about health, and therefore so do most doctors.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:08 am
by TheCatt
Old people who run 26 miles at a time may have heart stress? The hell you say! Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.
And by fatty foods, I meant more like cakes/french fries. I eat animals every meal, and bacon every day for breakfast.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:25 am
by TheCatt
Actually, his dietary philosophy isn't so different from mine. My carb/fat/protein ratio is within his range. But I still use grain oils.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:25 am
by TheCatt
. Can you imagine sending $600 per month to your “grocery insurer” and having to get pre-authorization for your pastured butter and grass-fed beef?
He read my article!
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:42 am
by thibodeaux
TheCatt wrote:Old people who run 26 miles at a time may have heart stress? The hell you say! Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.
Whatever. Look, do what you want to on your bum knee, but the fact is that you'd be better off not running. Listen to this guy, too
I used to run, spending several hours per week just running, but I got wise and stopped. Now I weigh 40 lbs less. I'm back to my high school dimensions. I work out MAYBE 30 minutes per week, lifting weights.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:02 am
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:Oh wait, his results weren't even statistically significant anyway.
Technically acurate, but misleadingly stated. His results are stistically more likely to be true than to be false. Not by enough to be accepted as a firm result, but by enough to be well worth further study.
In the meantime, I for one plan to not run anywhere for any reason. Just in case.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:56 pm
by Leisher
Lawsuit filed.
13 states involved.
Most interesting part of the article:
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.
Maybe, but the 10th amendment has been used previously to call federal laws unconstitutional, and in each case it involved the feds trying to make states foot the bill for enforcement of a federal law, which this bill apparently does.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:20 pm
by GORDON
I'd love to see a single state say "Our citizens aren't paying for this, and keep your fucking IRS agents out of our borders."
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:18 pm
by GORDON
Did anyone watch the signing of the bill into law, today?
I had to turn it off because it was too embarrassing and gross to watch Biden giving Obama a beej on live tv.
Apparently I JUST missed the f-bomb.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:28 pm
by GORDON
As I understand it, Obama made a deal with the pro-life democrats to sign another bill that stipulated abortions would not be paid for with government money, in order to get their "yes" votes on the big bill.
Looks like Obama might be telling them, "Fuck off, chumps. I aint signing shit."
[url=http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/23/on-health-care-day-obama-skips-signing-executive-order-on-abortion-stupak-on-defense-compa
res-order-to-emancipation-proclimation/]http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010....imation[/url]
President Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law Tuesday. He did not sign the executive order on abortion negotiated with Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak in an 11th-hour arrangement that may well have saved the entire health care reform effort.
A White House official told Fox, Obama will not sign the Executive Order Tuesday and has set no specific date to do so. Stupak predicted Obama would sign the order later this week. The White House said only that Obama would sign the order "soon."
Edited By GORDON on 1269390544
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:59 pm
by Malcolm
Lawsuit filed. 13 states involved.
"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."
I'll do it.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:06 pm
by Leisher
Malcolm wrote:Lawsuit filed. 13 states involved.
"To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead."
I'll do it.
And that's where these arrogant fucks think they've won.
They think they've passed legislation that assures them votes from the ignorant masses and if anyone fights them on it, they can scream "What about the children?!"
Hey bitch, what about MY children? I have a job and I bust ass to ensure they're covered. I want them to have good medical care, not government run horseshit. If I wanted to pay for someone else's kids to be covered I'd give money to charity. That's why they're there. They help the people who need it.
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ISN'T A FUCKING CHARITY!!
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:15 am
by Malcolm
The math alone frightens me ...
The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan. They've got about 127 million folk. The U.S. has about 310 million. Now take a gander at this chart thingy.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:57 am
by unkbill
Malcolm wrote:The math alone frightens me ...
The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan. They've got about 127 million folk. The U.S. has about 310 million. Now take a gander at
this chart thingy.
That they live 4 years longer with less baby deaths for about a third of what we pay for health care?
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:22 am
by TPRJones
No, that we spend so much mor ethan everyone else already, and we just signed into law policies that will likely double or triple that cost per capita.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:17 am
by Malcolm
unkbill wrote:Malcolm wrote:The math alone frightens me ...
The country in the world nearest to the U.S. in terms of population with universal health care is Japan. They've got about 127 million folk. The U.S. has about 310 million. Now take a gander at
this chart thingy.
That they live 4 years longer with less baby deaths for about a third of what we pay for health care?
They've also got one of the highest suicide rates in the world and their economy is fucked in every orifice.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:10 pm
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:As I understand it, Obama made a deal with the pro-life democrats to sign another bill that stipulated abortions would not be paid for with government money, in order to get their "yes" votes on the big bill.
Looks like Obama might be telling them, "Fuck off, chumps. I aint signing shit."
He signed it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic....bortion
Though I don't know why this would be done in a private room with no press allowed.
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:44 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Though I don't know why this would be done in a private room with no press allowed.
I can speculate that he doesn't want his fucking commie support base to figure out he's playing both sides.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:40 am
by unkbill
TPRJones wrote:No, that we spend so much mor ethan everyone else already, and we just signed into law policies that will likely double or triple that cost per capita.
I'm not totally on board with it costing so much more yet. We are actually already paying for the uninsured. If you go to the hospital they can not refuse service. If you can't pay the state ends up paying for the indigent. Where does the state get the money.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:49 am
by TPRJones
Sure, for basic emergency care that is true. But now everyone will have insurance. This means those people that go to the doctor for every little thing, those people that waste way too much time and money because someone else is paying for it and they don't have a job so they've got plenty of free time to find new ways to complain about something, they'll all be going to the doctor. Constantly. And we'll be paying for it.
Edited By TPRJones on 1269525004