talking points

posts about #talkingpoints more →
Your GOP August Talking Points
Shock: Obama Campaign Doing Job
The Wrong Bailout
Your Spitzer Scandal Talking Points

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

marjon00
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
I am curious how Gawker is allowed to report on politics? Or thinks it can? Those aren't talking points, they are facts. This type of health care has NEVER worked efficiently ANYWHERE in the world. The government screws up everything is touches. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. I thought the idea in this country was to have less government and more freedom. We are turning into a socialistic democracy. It's going to be a long 3.5 years...Bush wasn't this stupid.
Reply

marjon00 was starred marjon00 was unstarred

LutherHonduras
07/31/09

@marjon00: From your profile, "marjon00 has no friends."

You are either an idiot or a liar or a partisan blinded by ideology. You are also pissing up a rope by commenting on this story in this forum. What the fuck is wrong with you that you would do that?

You didn't read the whole pdf, you probably never will. You're not wrong and you're not entirely right. The one thing you are is the problem. Nothing good will ever be done on any side, no progress will ever be achieved without heartbreaking sacrifice and compromise because people like you exist.

Stop paralyzing humanity with your endless, petty, partisan bullshit.

I hate you.
Reply

minou promoted this comment LutherHonduras was starred LutherHonduras was unstarred

Magister
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
Some may question their motivation, but I think the fact that the country's largest private employer, Walmart has endorsed health care reform with an employer mandate says a lot and no matter what Mr Boehner might pull from his pocket, Walmart probably has a lot more sway in middle America.

Those who favor reform should counter Mr Boehner's talking points with everything Walmart is willing to offer. IMHO.
Reply

Magister was starred Magister was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@Magister: I think perhaps one of the best things Obama could do is corral a bunch of CEOs of major corporations--the salt-of-the-earthier (i.e. Walmart) the better--and hold a big press conference in which each stands up one after the other and endorses a national healthcare system. I find it hard to imagine that most huge corporations (other than those in the healthcare industry) would not warmly embrace such a thing.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Little Green Frog (Wise Latina)
07/31/09

@skt.smth: I like this idea, but there should be (GOP) opponents present as well, so we can SEE their faces as the arguments are being presented.
Reply

fileunder
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
The phrase "one bullet in the packet" makes me a little queasy.
Reply

fileunder was starred fileunder was unstarred

City_Dater
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
If the GOP didn't have the elderly and not-very-bright to frighten, they wouldn't have anyone to talk to at all.
Reply

City_Dater was starred City_Dater was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@City_Dater: The elderly are all on Medicare already. Polls show that something like 70% of the population are in favor of healthcare reform that includes a robust public option. So I don't think it's the elderly holding back progress. It's pretty obviously a matter of the insurance lobby having key members of congress in its pocket, such that reform never makes it out of committee, where it can then actually be debated and voted on.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
If you think that government takeover of healthcare will lead to increased healthcare coverage, I think that you don't understand how things work.
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: The problem is that "government takeover of healthcare" is a GOP myth. No such thing is even being considered by the democrats right now. What most of us are looking for is a true public option that will compete with private health insurance, so those private insurers will have some incentive to lower their prices and/or reorganize and streamline their wasteful administrative systems. Of every dollar dumped into private insurance, 25 cents is used for administrative costs. Those costs would be about 2 cents on the dollar for public health insurance. But public health insurance will just be this big, bloated, inefficient behemoth. Blah, blah, blah, all I see is your mouth flapping.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

allyzay
07/31/09

@princess_peach: I don't think you've heard of Europe.
Reply

allyzay was starred allyzay was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: Have you seen some of the things that are in the current bill that the house is working on? The amount of waste and nonsense regulation in it is just unbeleivable. Not to mention limits on doctor's pay (doctors will all be paid the same regardless of their specialty), governmental power to tell you when it is time to end your life, and also the end of private insurance. Yes, the current bill ends private insurance. It says that neither consumers cannot purchase new private policies or make changes to existing policies unless done through a "government exchange".

Also, I am not sure how you have determined that the overhead for the US government would be 2 cents on the dollar. I don't think that there are any government agencies working anywhere near that level of efficiency. If their were, our government would not cost so much.

Do some research on what is actually in this bill. Until you do that, blah blah blah, all I see is your mouth flapping.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@allyzay: Europe has terrible healthcare. Public healthcare is great until you get sick. All the Europeans I know are shelling out mega-bucks to pay for private care because the public care is so bad.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

eatsshootsleaves
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Longer: The health care reform that took place here in Massachusetts was far, FAR from perfect. One thing it did manage to do, however, is dramatically increase the number of people covered. The plan in Washington is incredibly similar to Massachusetts'.

Shorter: You have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply

eatsshootsleaves was starred eatsshootsleaves was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@allyzay: Right on. It's about time the naysayers took up the burden of proof. If the public sector can't do health insurance better than the private sector, let them prove it. Let's set up some a real competition and see who comes out ahead. Gotta love how the conservatives champion competition in every instance, except when it comes to healthcare. With healthcare, it would just be unfair to make the private sector compete with anybody else.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: The private sector competes with itself. That is what a market economy is. When the private sector competes with the public sector, it always will lose because the public sector makes the rules. Then you have no competition and no choice.

Have any of you ever taken economics?
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: You can read the bill here : http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

Heneage
07/31/09

@princess_peach: I still have yet to hear anyone explain to me why a government-run program is ipso facto wasteful and inefficient. Do people have any idea just how much money corporate America pisses away on an annual basis? And they're supposedly the "efficient" ones. Having worked in both the public and private sector (and as a consultant to both) I can assure you we did more with less in the Federal government.
Reply

Heneage was starred Heneage was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: That's strange! I'm in a position to speak to Canadians and Brits on a pretty regular basis, and they've all told me that their countries' healthcare systems are pretty much 100% uncontroversial. Even conservatives in Canada and the UK look at their healthcare systems as jewels of government service.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@Heneage: Because the government has no incentive to be cost efficient. The government spends other peoples money.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: except for the wait time to see a doctor, and below average cancer survival rates, etc.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

La Mareada
07/31/09

@skt.smth: Exactly. the Republican/Conservative plan is monopoly protection, not competition or a free market. Most of the obstructionists represent states or districts where one dominant company controls the market.
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment La Mareada was starred La Mareada was unstarred

Heneage
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Considering the state of the economy, and the complete abdication of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, I believe the same could be said of any publicly traded company.
Reply

Heneage was starred Heneage was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@Heneage: I totally agree. I just don't think that the government can fix this - instead they just distort incentives even more. Even the best intentioned social engineering has unintended consequences.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Wait, but the argument conservatives always make is that the private sector always does it better than the public sector (whatever "it" happens to be at the time of the conversation). What "better" usually means in these circumstances is "more efficiently." The public sector is routinely denigrated for being bloated and mismanaged and inefficient. But what you're saying is that the private sector can never do it better than the public sector. How can these two arguments coexist?

I will readily agree that the private sector handles many things more efficiently than the government would, i.e. car manufacturing. But the bottom line is that the healthcare industry spends 25% of its revenue on administrative costs, because all the assholes at the top have to make $20 million a year plus bonuses or whatever. No government employee is ever going to be paid anywhere near that much money, not even the director of the department in charge of a public healthcare system.

Something like 60% of private insurance plans are already non-profit, by the way, and that hasn't killed business for the industry, because in the end, those non-profit insurance plans cost just as much and spend just as much of the proceeds inefficiently.

I don't see any problem with there being a public option if the public option does it better, i.e. not spending 25 cents of every dollar you put in on admin costs, when 2 cents will do just fine.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Since when have I even attempted to defend this bill? I think Obama and the democrats are half-assing it, and that the type of reform they're promoting isn't going to give the private insurers any incentive to get their ships in shape. Last I heard, they had some kind of "tiered care" model coming down the line, which would probably be something like a shit-ass coverage that basically everybody can qualify for, and higher levels of coverage that basically nobody qualifies for unless they're dirt poor and living in a gutter. So the idea would be that you get this crap coverage, and you have to supplement it with a (hopefully reduced in price) private plan. That's a total cop-out, in my opinion. So no, I'm not advocating the plans that seem to be in the pipeline. But I am advocating a public option, as a general idea.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: Sorry, I don't think I was clear. I was not saying that private sector can never do better than the public sector. Quite the contrary. What I meant is that the public sector makes the rules and also has an unlimited source of funds. It will regulate the private sector out of existence. While the private sector will have to either raise prices or take a loss for complaince, the public sector can just extract more taxes or sell some government bonds.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Why is it that, when talking about shit that might happen to your health, conservatives always act like cancer should be the benchmark? Honestly, if I got cancer right now, I'd mark myself dead almost as a matter of course, because even if they treated me and I made it into remission, I'd owe the healthcare provider in a way that I could never repay anyway. I can't afford health insurance that's going to cover me through a cancer treatment, and neither can the roughly 50 million Americans without health insurance (probably a good many more than that do have insurance, but not the kind that would cover them if they came down with any kind of terminal illness).
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: 60% of private health insurance plans are non-profit. Perhaps you didn't think of that before you made this comment.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

eatsshootsleaves
07/31/09

@princess_peach: But you haven't explained how this results in decreased coverage. Probably because it, uh, obviously won't. Did they not teach obvious consequences in the Economics 101 class you took?

Look, every poll of the public's satisfaction of health care shows that the citizens of countries with some form of universal insurance are more satisfied with their care than the U.S.:

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20041029/us-health-care-satisfaction-trails-others

Also? France has one of the highest cancer survival rates in the world.
Reply

eatsshootsleaves was starred eatsshootsleaves was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Have you ever been to a doctor in America? People have to wait here, too. I mean, there's a whole fucking cultural stereotype in America dedicated to the waits people must endure before they're able to see doctors. Many a bad joke has been written about this. But I suppose they all must have been based on European waiting rooms, right?
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@La Mareada: This is very much the truth. The GOP and the Blue Dogs are protecting the interests of insurance companies, in the specific areas where they basically hold regional monopolies. They fail to mention, of course, the fact that many employers don't offer real options to their employees, as far as insurance plans are concerned. Everybody at Corporation X uses Kaiser-Permanente, or else.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Well, how about we consider for a moment the fact that the primary incentive for insurance companies is to turn down the claims made by their members. And then maybe we should ask ourselves, is this really the sector that can do healthcare best? Should this really be the underlying ethos of the entities that hold the key to our medical treatment?

If that is where the insurance industry is coming from, I honestly don't care if they can compete against the government. Such a company should not be able to compete at all, in my opinion.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

eatsshootsleaves
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Also, yes, I know what the bill (which is only one of several) includes. Do you?

Government-run health insurance won't necessarily run private health insurance out of business. First of all, the public option is becoming incredibly watered down. One option would only trigger the public plan if private insurance hasn't reduced cost by a set amount. This isn't single-payer health care we're talking about. The idea isn't to put private insurance out of business; it's to provide incentives for private insurance to lower costs for consumers. And you can be damn sure that this is the exactly the type of public plan our Blue Dog overlords will allow.
Reply

eatsshootsleaves was starred eatsshootsleaves was unstarred

eatsshootsleaves
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: Also, from the WebMD article above:

Sixty percent of patients in New Zealand told researchers that they were able to get a same-day appointment with a doctor when sick, nearly double the 33% of Americans who got such speedy care. Only Canada scored lower, with 27% saying they could get same-day attention. Americans were also the most likely to have difficulty getting care on nights, weekends, or holidays without going to an emergency room.
Reply

eatsshootsleaves was starred eatsshootsleaves was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: But in New Zealand you can't be seen instantly, without an appointment, if you come down with cancer, therefore the American flag is prettier than all the other flags.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Little Green Frog (Wise Latina)
07/31/09

@skt.smth: Exactly, I live in a large metro area with world class hospitals and when I had to see rheumatologists (twice) I had to wait a month each time. And this is with REALLY good and expensive private insurance.
Reply

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: No... non-profit is not the same as public sector. Non-profits may not need to make profits, but they still have to generate revenue, which gives them the motivation to deliver their services in a cost effective manner that the public sector lacks. Non-profits still have to charge a price consumers will pay and deliver coverage that consumers want in order to pay their bills. The government does not have to do that.
I am not really sure what relevance this has to an argument about the effectiveness of public healthcare.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: I suppose technically you have increased coverage, in the sense that on a numerical basis, more people will be covered. The type of coverage given will deteriorate though. Healthcare is a scare resource. There is a limited supply. Just because the government says that everyone gets coverage does not mean that enough healthcare will exist to cover everyone.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

princess_peach
07/31/09

@skt.smth: I have been to a doctor. When I am scheduling a routine check-up, yeah, I might wait a month. When I am sick though, I usually don't wait more than an hour.

My argument though, is that government healthcare will only mean that you have to wait longer. Much longer.
Reply

princess_peach was starred princess_peach was unstarred

homovegetarian
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: you are forgetting, obviously, that the private sector will disappear if there is a public option! why do you think there are no cars in nyc, they have buses and a subway, you can't even get a cab in new york because private enterprise has been crushed. all of the cities with public transit are car-free for a reason, no competition ruins everything. and don't forget about ups, fed-ex, and private delivery services, which do not exist.
Reply

homovegetarian was starred homovegetarian was unstarred

theruttmeister
07/31/09

@princess_peach:

Also... please stop saying that Brits don't like the NHS, we might complain about it (we complain about EVERYTHING) but we are all watching the current madness in the USA in utter disbelief... Its not even a debate that we would ever have...
Option 1) The Government, does its job and looks after its people, when they are sick. (you know, like it also protects them from terrorists and other countrys and dodgy adverts n stuff)
Option 2) Private companys get to take advantage of the fact that you can't treat yourself for cancer (or whatevs) and so gets to screw you for as much money as it can... cause its that or death...
Plus bonus profits to them if they can avoid actually having to pay to treat your deadly taint-rot.

And don't say the free market solves all ills... because if that was true we wouldn't have companies being fined for price fixing!
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment theruttmeister was starred theruttmeister was unstarred

gawkimo
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Jesus. What bunch of horse shit. Medicare -- which is a single payer system for the elderly (who overwhelmingly support Medicare) -- has about half of the administrative costs as private insurance, because while private insurance spends a great deal of time trying to deny coverage (because patients are "liabilities") Medicare does not. The fact are there: Medicare's administrative costs are single digit; private insurers spend double digits on administrative costs.
Reply

gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred

gawkimo
07/31/09

@princess_peach: The government is OUR government, OUR capitalist democracy for and by the people. Why are social conservatives alwasy sniffing the thrones of multinational corporate enterprise (like enormous financial institutions that don't give a shit about you, your children or your country) and shitting on democracy by creating this false image that the govenrment is our adversary? When I read that Purdue and Tyson FIGHT govenrment regualtions to label their chickens to say they were fed ARSENIC to fatten them up and kill of their parasites, all I can think of is thanks God we live in a country with a democratic government that works to check the evils of unfettered corproate enterprise. You think AIG should run our health care system and decide who gets coverage? That's nuts.
Reply

Edited by gawkimo at 07/31/09 3:54 PM gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred

gawkimo
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Social engineering? I think that talking point left the station three years ago. It's getting kind of old. The status quo is that enormous insurance companies decide who gets covered and what doctors we can see. I know three people in my life who have DIED because they didn't have health coverage couldn't afford to see a doctor and by the time they were in the emergency room, their conditions were terminal. So spare me this horse shit about how in the American system it's oh so easy to get health care OK? Instead of complaining -- give us a solution. You seem to know so much about the world's health care systems. Instead of complaining about the current proposals, you need to offer your answers.
Reply

Edited by gawkimo at 07/31/09 3:58 PM gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred

gawkimo
07/31/09

@eatsshootsleaves: Thank you eatshoots. It's very difficult for one person to fact check all this nonsense.
Reply

gawkimo was starred gawkimo was unstarred

atlasfugged
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Healthcare is not a scarce (I corrected you're Freudian slip above) resource. That's just silly. Investment increases its supply. If you're rich, healthcare is pretty much an unlimited resource. The question is do you believe healthcare is a necessary resource - that everyone deserves to be as healthy as their genetics and dumb-luck allow - and does it warrant the requisite investment. Somehow I think you and people like you feel that, even in the greatest country in the world, people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and fend for themselves when it comes to their healthcare. If it means not seeing a doctor because you can't afford it or going bankrupt if your afflicted with a catastrophic illness, well then, tough luck for not being rich. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment atlasfugged was starred atlasfugged was unstarred

atlasfugged
07/31/09

@princess_peach: With respect to the economics of healthcare: (skt.smt alludes to this above) What I believe to be the fundamental problem with private healthcare is an inherent misalignment of private-sector incentives with respect to the interests of society. Members of society demand access to high-quality healthcare, regardless of their health or wealth, at something less than a punitive cost. The fear of sickness is enough; it does not need to be coupled with the fear of bankruptcy. The Medical Industrial Complex, on the other hand, is concerned with profit maximization. This includes pricing its products and services at the maximum price consumers are willing to pay, minimizing its internal costs, and mitigating risk. Like any other industry, all profits that are realized are passed on to its shareholders or to the advancement of its business strategies, not to its consumers (unless, of course, it happens to increase market share). It should be clear that such motivations are diametric to the interests of society. Therein, lies the problem: The market left to its own devices fails to provide its products and services in manner that fully satifies the interests of society - as a whole: rich, poor, and middle-class. The solution seems to demand some force external to the market. And, therein, lies the role of government. Its role, therefore, is either to align the disparate interests of society and industry, or to simply provide the product and services which the private sector has insufficient incentive to produce on its own.
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment atlasfugged was starred atlasfugged was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Think about it this way. Non-profits don't have to post profits. One would think that this would make them more affordable than private health insurers who do have to post profits. But there's no way that non-profit insurance plans can be this haven of affordability. After all, they constitute 60% of our already-abysmal private healthcare options. They are just as bad, in terms of cost and care given, as for-profit insurers. Which means they are not passing the benefits of a non-profit model on to consumers. More than likely, what they're doing is passing those benefits on to their executives. I'd be that if you looked at the boards of most "non-profit" insurers, you'd see fatcats at the top pulling in $15 million a year in salary and bonuses.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: So what you're saying is that, if private coverage were, by some kind of magic, affordable to everybody, and everybody bought into it, that would also be a bad thing. Because if everybody were on private health insurance, we would also have to "ration" care, as the GOP so stupidly puts it.

So the end-game for people like you is that private insurers need to be able to rule the roost and price 50 million people out of benefits, so that the rest of us can see a doctor without having our healthcare "rationed."

That doesn't seem like a very sound solution to the problem. It just sounds like a bunch of conservatives giving up.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@princess_peach: Why should you have to wait at all, though? Your private health insurance should give you the instant access your heart desires, shouldn't it? Why are you paying such a high premium? Why not go with public health insurance if you're going to have to wait with the private stuff as well.

This idea that you'd end up "waiting longer" for basic care (i.e. generally feeling sick or unwell) is pure hearsay. What is your opinion based on? Studies have already shown that Americans have longer wait times for care than several countries with public healthcare systems.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@theruttmeister: Exactly. The same argument could easily be applied to anything. Why not let the private sector take over homeland security? Wouldn't they "do it better"? Why is a tax-supported military such a sacrosanct thing to us? We should just let private companies handle that complicated stuff.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@atlasfugged: Not to mention the fact that it's actually good for the economy to be built on a healthy workforce, not one that is chronically sick and, as a result, less productive. So even if people want to look at the healthcare question in the most cynical, bottom-line terms of economic advantage, there are pretty obvious benefits to covering everybody.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

atlasfugged
07/31/09

@skt.smth: Also, wages stagnate in our current system because employers must divert resources to paying for health insurance. And not only does the status quo limit productivity, it reduces mobility in the labor market and entrepreneurism. Employees often feel compelled to stay at their job lest they lose their health insurance or have to pay for it out of pocket. Similarly, employees are less likely to risk venturing out on their own and starting a new business if they have to endure the exorbitant out-of-pocket costs of health insurance/healthcare. In the first case, labor markets becomes less dynamic. Without a robust healthcare and health insurance system the social and economic of downsizing are magnified. This too makes labor markets less dynamic. The second case clearly encumbers the entrepreneurial spirit that is so revered in this country. And, of course, there is the effect healthcare costs have on the federal deficit. We are fast approaching the point at which these inefficiencies become a serious drain on the economy. So, as much as I believe in meaningful healthcare reform as being a moral imperative, I believe it also to be an economic imperative.
Reply

atlasfugged was starred atlasfugged was unstarred

homovegetarian
07/31/09

@atlasfugged: bless all of you had the patience to address the bs in earnest.
Reply

homovegetarian was starred homovegetarian was unstarred

homovegetarian
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
as everyone knows, when 30 to 50 million more new people enter a market place, that market contracts, then money and jobs are lost.
Reply

homovegetarian was starred homovegetarian was unstarred

depardoo
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
Has Boehner dialed down the bronzer a couple of notches?
Reply

depardoo was starred depardoo was unstarred

ChillbearLatrigue
07/31/09

@depardoo: I actually crossed paths with Boehner outside of the Capitol in May. Just a freak chance run in. I don't know him or anything. However, he definitely looked less orange than I had seen him on television. However, I think in this pic that he still looks pretty dark. It's a tough call. In the interest of full disclosure, Boehner did say hello, but was not overly friendly. He must not have recognized me from all of my commenting.
Reply

ChillbearLatrigue was starred

depardoo
07/31/09

@ChillbearLatrigue:

Next time you run into him, address him as "Mr. Boner". Given the GOP's penchant for peen, that should get his attention.
Reply

depardoo was starred depardoo was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@depardoo: Is it crass of me to wish that Boehner would come down with skin cancer or something, so the worth of his public health insurance can finally be demonstrated for him?
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Cicada
07/31/09

@skt.smth: No. It would be crass of you to wish that Boehner comes down with taint cancer or a raging case of crabs. Skin cancer is classy!
Reply

Cicada was starred Cicada was unstarred

Matt Cherette
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
The best thing about the GOP's health care chart is that the Drudge-sized font is subliminally reserved for the word "STATES."
Reply

Matt Cherette was starred Matt Cherette was unstarred

goetz
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
Total Boehner of a chart. It's cute the way the lines hop over each other.
Reply

goetz was starred goetz was unstarred

Heneage
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
I'm pretty sure Edward Tufte could revise this chart in about 20 minutes - make it look beautiful and easy to understand without changing any of the underlying data.

Maybe that will be my weekend project. Or maybe I'll go get drunk instead.
Reply

Heneage was starred Heneage was unstarred

lionboy
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
The GOP's highly intellectual tendency to just say the opposite of anything Obama says is much like the "am-not-are-too" arguments employed by short-bus-riding five-year-olds. Perhaps if Democrats use the old' "am-not-are-too-am-not-am-not-are too: trick. In the middle of a debate, simply switch sides in the argument and watch them mindlessly shift gears so fast they aren't even aware it happened.
Reply

lionboy was starred lionboy was unstarred

Lorem Ipsum
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
That chart makes me want to stab my eyeballs. Fortunately, I have health insurance.
Reply

Mediahohoho promoted this comment Lorem Ipsum was starred Lorem Ipsum was unstarred

Mediahohoho
07/31/09

@Lorem Ipsum: Not for long, sucker. Don't you know Obama's going to take it, sell it to some illegal muslims and put you on an ice floe when you get sick? John Boehner (not pronounced BON-er) told me so.
Reply

Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred

Magister
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
Aren't there a handful of places clamoring for the Guantanamo detainees? I know there's at least one because there's actually been sort of a campaign and I'm pretty sure that I've heard of another...

Maybe they're not in Republican districts?
Reply

Magister was starred Magister was unstarred

Mediahohoho
07/31/09

In reply to Your GOP August Talking Points
I can't see how relieving small businesses of the burden of covering employees' health insurance premiums (which, yes, I know is too obvious to be in the "blue dog approved" program we'll eventually get) does anything but help the employment picture. Seriously, why would a small business hire anyone when they have to shell out $1,600 for a family of three to avoid bankruptcy in the event of an illness? Unless the only employment picture douche bags like Boehner are worried about is the C-suite at United Healthcare (average salary=eight-figures and up, suckers). Seriously, are people really going to rally to the defense of insurance fat cats the way Republicans are asking them to?. It seems even stupider than usual for them.
Reply

Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred

skt.smth
07/31/09

@Mediahohoho: By the way, this is exactly the reason why the Japanese auto manufacturers beat us in the marketplace, because they aren't burdened by insane benefits packages.

I can't think of an infusion of federal capital that would more directly bolster the capability and the desire of employers to hire new workers than the institution of a public health insurance that covers anybody who wants in.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Better to Eat You With
07/31/09

@skt.smth: We don't buy Hondas because they're cheaper. We buy them because, accurately or not, they are believed to be more reliable and better-made.
Reply

skt.smth promoted this comment Edited by Better to Eat You With at 07/31/09 7:26 PM

skt.smth
08/01/09

@Better to Eat You With: We buy them because they are a better value (more for your money), and happen to be better made and more reliable as well.

The reason why Honda can give you a better value is, in part, because they don't have to pay out massive health benefits to their employees. The cars themselves are better made and more reliable, in part, because the employees who make them are by and large healthier, and therefore more productive than American workers.
Reply

skt.smth was starred skt.smth was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#talkingpoints

Gawker

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Your GOP August Talking Points

Shock: Obama Campaign Doing Job

The Wrong Bailout

Your Spitzer Scandal Talking Points

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment