Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: But, but, Buuuuush. . . 51
RIP Stephen Kiteck's practice:
https://twitter.com/darab_ic/status/409885444331937794/photo/1
https://twitter.com/darab_ic/status/409885444331937794/photo/1
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro
Shall we chase the other unicorn instead? (Score:2)
That said, one website claimed this guy finished his MD in 1975. That would put him at about 65-70 years old today, which means he was likely looking at retirement in the not-too-distant future. Whet
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The unicorn of Obama's competence?
Don't be ridiculous. The topic is supposed to be health care, right? Hence I pointed out that the idea of "selling insurance across state lines" is useless. It is the conservative health care unicorn.
That said, I see that the MD mentioned in the article you linked to is from Kentucky. I recall another popular MD from Kentucky who is a Tea Party darling, yet I haven't heard anything of him closing his medical practice in response to the health insurance industry bailout act of 2010.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Health care; Benghazi; the economy: the man's a wrecking ball.
Well I don't know what they have to do with Benghazi but the philosophy of the Paul family is indeed disastrous.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that should give you a hint of how government is controlled by the businesses that 'contribute' to the campaigns. Every attempt to rein in this power is labeled socialism by you people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well
So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, and the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.
Re: (Score:1)
That is precisely the world you live in today. The businesses that rely on those regulations are who make the biggest contributions. That money will dry up the the politicians they support don't put those regulations into place. Obamacare is good for industry, and the fly-by-nights who know to close the doors before the cops get too close.
Re: (Score:1)
...the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.
That is precisely the world you live in today.
In many areas, yes. I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.
On the contrary sir. I am always pleased by your rare lucid moments such as these. You're getting a little bit closer to nature.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For him to make anyone look bad, he'd have to:
None of that seems likely.
Re: (Score:1)
This is you and d_r [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:1)
Odd. You think that me saying the same things that I say very, very often -- weekly, at least, for many years -- is ... rare.
You know that's self-refuting, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, there are many points of light in the vast darkness. Now it's up to you to learn how not to single anybody out.
Re: (Score:1)
You're very confused. Want to try again?
Re: (Score:1)
Confused about what?
Re: (Score:2)
If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well
So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away.
This isn't about the free market. This is about increasing the cost of doing business. If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle, you increase the overhead costs of that office. You are forcing them to hire more employees who are not health care professionals, increasing the cost of health care without actually delivering any additional health care.
That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing
Who is it a good thing for, when you are driving smaller medical pr
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't about the free market.
False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.
If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle ...
Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.
You are forcing them to ...
Anything you say next is false. I am forcing nothing. Neither is the government. If they are forced to do anything, it is by free market forces.
Who is it a good thing for
Everyone, except for those relying on government to protect their interests against the reasonable interests of others, and I have no sympathy for such people.
Could you go further off topic if you tried?
I didn't go off-topic at all.
There are no federal regulations preventing the sale of insurance from state A in state B
So? I wonder wh
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about the free market.
False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.
There is nothing arbitrary about selling insurance. The individual states have the right to dictate what policies - based on coverages and other terms - can be sold within their state. Any insurance company who creates a plan that meets those standards can sell it there. They are defined by the states for their own states. If a state wanted to they could drop all the requirements and let every company sell every policy; there is no federal restriction preventing that from happening.
If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle ...
Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.
So then when the co
Re: (Score:1)
There is nothing arbitrary about selling insurance.
I didn't say there was. I said the restrictions are arbitrary. I was explicit.
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor. I'm sorry that your argument is so emotional and devoid of fact and reason that you find yourself forced to do such a thing. Now if you could learn something from that, we would all be impressed.
However being as reality, facts, and logic all are diametrically opposed to the argument you are trying to make, I would not expect such a thing to happen. So go ahead,
Re: (Score:1)
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor.
I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor.
I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.
That was in no way a lie:
And then, to wrap it all up, you lied about lying. I'm sorry that you take your dramatic and profound loss so personally that you have to lower yourself to such a
Re: (Score:1)
i hope the unemployment office can help you find a good deal on ointment for the butthurt you just exposed yourself to today pudge. you just made yourself look like a complete idiot in front of the whole world.
Shrug. Since I didn't read the comments in question, I am feeling no pain. But I suspect if I had, I also wouldn't.
you aren't even remotely close to being in her intellectual league, pudge
The fact that he resorts to lies in the first sentence of each comment implies otherwise.
the best thing you did this time is after demonstrating yourself to be a liar
You're lying. I did no such thing.
Re: (Score:1)
not familiar with this strange meaning of "lies" you are employing, here.
You're lying.
Re: (Score:1)
you are not consistent enough with how you discard truth as "lies"
You're lying. I am extremely consistent in how I use the word "lie," and I always use it for intentional attempts to mislead or deceive.
Re: (Score:1)
so then when you are telling something obviously false, but not wiling to acknowledge it as a lie, it is because it is not intended to mislead or deceive?
Feel free to provide your evidence that I've done such a thing. You have none, of course: you're lying.
your statement also doesn't explain why you labeled truthful statements from d_r and the AC as lies, when they were factual and clearly not intended to mislead or deceive
I labelled no such things as lies. You're lying.
you are lying about being consistent ... or, you are just unwilling to share the full depth of how you twist the definition of "lie"
You're lying.
it is clearly demonstrated that you lied in this very discussion.
You're lying.
But, but, Wiiiiiiilson (Score:1)
Whatever happened in the past is easy to correct. You just have to want to.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get it. Is it different when you do the same thing?
Re: (Score:1)