home
S-Chip Veto Overide Fails in the House | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

heh (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 10:40:52 AM EST
As for your medicare nonsense- many seniors have found the coverage inadequate.

Could we have an example that shows that the plan is not a HUGE improvement over what they had?

BTW - The last time you provided a primer on Medicare Part D I had to correct your many mistakes. Did you learn from that??

You need to find a more credible source than a statement by a Republican partisan congressman.

The Left is always shooting at the messenger. He is either correct in the "25 year old" part, or he is not.

I again note that a National Sales Tax is the ONLY way to pay for NHC that will be acceptable to the public. Without it NHC can not and will not be enacted.

So just keep mumbling "fair" while millions suffer.

[ Parent ]

This explains a lot (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 11:09:21 AM EST
Shooting the messenger as you call it, is not necessairly bad. If done to show bias or to show the witness is not an expert in an area where an expert is needed, or does not have personal knowledge of which s/he speaks, then it is known as impeaching the witness on grounds considered to be reasonable. If done as a mere ad hominium attack- e.g. "s/he is a communist and you cannot believe a word they say" that is not reasonable.

Here I show Barton has bias. That is reasonable grounds.

I see now you concede the medicare plan with the doughnut hole has problems- this is a good start on your part. You are no longer playing ostrich.

As for your national sales tax, keep studying the issue. Be sure to take into account the money spent by insureds today on insurance premiums will no longer be spent in that form.

I am not mumbling about fair taxation. Its an important issue. Its what politics is all about. What do you have against fair taxation?

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Quit dodging (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 01:17:02 PM EST
Whether or not a 25 year old "child" is covered under SCHIP on steroids is pretty straight forward. Again. He is either wrong, or he is correct. Bias has nothing to do with it.

You invent things better than Algore. I have never claimed it to be perfect,just a thousand times better than what we had, which was nothing. Where do you get such things??

Wait, no one invents better than Algore, but you are in the top tier.

As for your national sales tax, keep studying the issue. Be sure to take into account the money spent by insureds today on insurance premiums will no longer be spent in that form.

And your point is? Are you saying that since they would no longer be paying that is unfair?? I posit that they will (are you ready????) SPEND the money and pay the National Sales Tax...

And "fairness" is a very important point. If the public sees NHC as a means tested welfare program it is DOA.

[ Parent ]

I am not dodging anything nor inventing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:45:18 PM EST
You seem to be having a temper tantrum, however.

Now calm down, count to 10 and then re-read what I wrote and apply it to the situation.

Joe Barton is biased, he may be speaking the truth, he may be lying. If you have other evidence, you might convince me, but you will not on Barton's word alone.

That is a legitmate criticism.

As for premiums, they are all ready financing a health care insurance system- I'm sure you can figure out the implications for NHC.

You've yet to overcome the objection to regressive taxation via a national sales tax. Nor have you answered why you prefer an unfair taxation method to a fair one. So stop, count to 10, think and try again. Or not.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Not to butt in, but (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 02:51:56 PM EST
tobacco taxes can reasonably be described as regressive as well. No?
Current smoking prevalence also was higher among adults living below the poverty level* (32.9%) than among those at or above the poverty level (22.2%). During 1983--2002, the gap in smoking prevalence between those living below the poverty line and those living at or above it increased from 8.7 percentage points to 10.7 percentage points (Figure 1). In addition, the percentage of ever smokers who had quit was higher for persons at or above the poverty level than for those below the poverty line. As with current smoking prevalence, this gap was larger in 2002 than in 1983 (20.0 percentage points versus 18.7 percentage points).


[ Parent ]
Yes but (none / 0) (#37)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:52:39 PM EST
(Pun intended).

raising the cost of tobacco does make an economic incentive to quit smoking. Cancer rates are down, but only because less people are smoking. That does have a positive effect on health care.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Yes No (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 04:58:04 PM EST
does make an economic incentive to quit

Then why do more of the poor smoke???

[ Parent ]

Gee Jim (none / 0) (#44)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:44:13 PM EST
You don't think the rising price of cigarrettes has anything to do with the drop in smokers?

Failure of logic to assume because poor people smoke in greater numbers means the price of cigarettes has no effect on smoking, especially in light of the undeniable drop in smoking overall. Or do you think only the well to do stops smoking?

You really do have a probelm with the fallacy of false cause.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

I agree with you, (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 05:06:15 PM EST
although some might suggest that it sounds like you're saying that regressive taxation is bad, except when you say it's not...

[ Parent ]
I don't approve of it as a means of rasing revnue (none / 0) (#43)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 07:38:22 PM EST
I don't object to it as a tool to reduce smoking.

Its fiscally foolish to rely on it as the sole source of revenue.

the some who

might suggest that it sounds like you're saying that regressive taxation is bad, except when you say it's not...

are probably the same ones who believe in supply side economics AND balanced budgets; or

believed Bush when he said Iraq was an imminent threat; or

believed Bush when he said he would fire the leakers.

I don't worry about that group of people thinks.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

In other words (1.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 09:09:16 PM EST
you and facts are not well acquainted.

[ Parent ]
I am better acquainted with facts (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 08:10:33 AM EST
than you are with intelligence.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

S-Chip Veto Overide Fails in the House | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft