Lynch your boss

[Xsyne]

eat the motherfucking rich

So we are all out of work

Of course. Absolutely no one would take their place. After all, is not the foundation of the free market a complete lack of competition?

[The_pantless_hero]

eat the motherfucking rich

So we are all out of work

Of course. Absolutely no one would take their place. After all, is not the foundation of the free market a complete lack of competition?

No, no, the free market is a system in which everything is owned and run by the rich. Without them, there would be nothing, the economy would collapse, people wouldn't know what to do with themselves - they could no longer produce! Anarchy, man, anarchy!

[Sibirsky]

The Democrats are most certainly addressing cost if you realize we are talking about costs to the people.

Not enough of it.

Far more if they tell Baucus to go fuck himself. Hopefully the realization that no matter what they propose, the Republicans will vote against will inspire them to pass what they wanted in the first place instead of a piece of shit "bipartisan" bill. The true costs of healthcare will not be addressed unless the entire system is yanked up from the ground and completely replaced. Which isn't going to happen immediately.

Yes they will tell Baucus to f himself and that's a good thing. The entire system does not need to be addressed. What needs to be done is measures to cut costs. That is tort reform, taxation, needless but mandated coverage, ability to buy coverage across state lines and finally long term coverage contracts. I am sure I missed something.

Maryland women that have insurance for example, are paying for testicular cancer coverage. This is mandated by Maryland law. Insurance is a transfer of risk. In other words, according to Maryland law, it's female residents are at risk of growing balls and growing malignant cancers in those balls.

[Mikertaz Kein]

The Democrats are most certainly addressing cost if you realize we are talking about costs to the people.

Not enough of it.

Far more if they tell Baucus to go fuck himself. Hopefully the realization that no matter what they propose, the Republicans will vote against will inspire them to pass what they wanted in the first place instead of a piece of shit "bipartisan" bill. The true costs of healthcare will not be addressed unless the entire system is yanked up from the ground and completely replaced. Which isn't going to happen immediately.

Yes they will tell Baucus to f himself and that's a good thing. The entire system does not need to be addressed. What needs to be done is measures to cut costs. That is tort reform, taxation, needless but mandated coverage, ability to buy coverage across state lines and finally long term coverage contracts. I am sure I missed something.

Maryland women that have insurance for example, are paying for testicular cancer coverage. This is mandated by Maryland law. Insurance is a transfer of risk. In other words, according to Maryland law, it's female residents are at risk of growing balls and growing malignant cancers in those balls.

Only if they've visited Trinidad first

[Fson]

i just do this


http://www.doodie.com/anger_management.php

[Nerushimi Rus]

I would support this, had it been on a larger scale without the sheer level of destruction involved. I'm all for revolutionary activity, but this seems more like a mere coordinated murder rather than resistance.

[The_pantless_hero]

Yes they will tell Baucus to f himself and that's a good thing. The entire system does not need to be addressed.

Yes, it does. The system is inherently flawed.

That is tort reform,

Does not cut costs.

ability to buy coverage across state lines

Does not reduce costs.

I am sure I missed something.

If by something, you mean everything, then yes, yes you did.
Try the fee-for-service system, non-negotiated drug costs, poorly regulated drug and medical supply industry, allowing direct to consumer advertising, and more

Insurance is a transfer of risk. In other words, according to Maryland law, it's female residents are at risk of growing balls and growing malignant cancers in those balls.

Excellent job being intentionally obtuse. You would win an Oscar if they gave them out for being such things.

[Sibirsky]

Yes they will tell Baucus to f himself and that's a good thing. The entire system does not need to be addressed.

Yes, it does. The system is inherently flawed.

That is tort reform,

Does not cut costs.

A surgeon in Florida has to spend $250,000 per year on malpractice insurance. That cost is is borne by his patients. Their insurance. Ultimately everyone. Is Mississippi, tort reform has led to a 91% reduction in claims. A 42% reduction in premiums and a 20% rebate. Yes, it does cut costs. Nationwide we spend $300 billion on malpractice suits. Not to say that economic costs should not be paid for. But punitive damages should be limited.

ability to buy coverage across state lines

Does not reduce costs.

Sure it does. A company wanting to do business in multiple states needs multiple teams of lawyers familiar with those particular states' regulatory requirements. Those lawyers are not cheap.

I am sure I missed something.

If by something, you mean everything, then yes, yes you did.
Try the fee-for-service system, non-negotiated drug costs, poorly regulated drug and medical supply industry, allowing direct to consumer advertising, and more

Insurance is a transfer of risk. In other words, according to Maryland law, it's female residents are at risk of growing balls and growing malignant cancers in those balls.

Excellent job being intentionally obtuse. You would win an Oscar if they gave them out for being such things.

Intentionally obtuse are the regulators. In any field. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes about as much sense as flood insurance in Phoenix, or earthquake insurance on the east coast. You insure risk, that, you know you are at risk of suffering.

We need long term contracts. If you have insurance, you have coverage for maximum a year. Then it is renewed every year. If god forbid something happens, come renewal you are either dropped, or your rate doubles or more. If the coverage was for say, 20 years, you rate would remain the same.

[The_pantless_hero]

Intentionally obtuse are the regulators. In any field. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes about as much sense as flood insurance in Phoenix, or earthquake insurance on the east coast. You insure risk, that, you know you are at risk of suffering.

1) The east coast sit on some of the biggest, most devastating fault lines in the US. And anywhere can flood
2) If there are less people putting in money, then the individual cost of insurance goes up to cover the lost money put in. Costs will be high unless the system itself is changed.

We need long term contracts. If you have insurance, you have coverage for maximum a year. Then it is renewed every year. If god forbid something happens, come renewal you are either dropped, or your rate doubles or more. If the coverage was for say, 20 years, you rate would remain the same.

Quite an ironic position.

[Sibirsky]

Intentionally obtuse are the regulators. In any field. Testicular cancer coverage for women makes about as much sense as flood insurance in Phoenix, or earthquake insurance on the east coast. You insure risk, that, you know you are at risk of suffering.

1) The east coast sit on some of the biggest, most devastating fault lines in the US. And anywhere can flood
2) If there are less people putting in money, then the individual cost of insurance goes up to cover the lost money put in. Costs will be high unless the system itself is changed.

We need long term contracts. If you have insurance, you have coverage for maximum a year. Then it is renewed every year. If god forbid something happens, come renewal you are either dropped, or your rate doubles or more. If the coverage was for say, 20 years, you rate would remain the same.

Quite an ironic position.

You are not going to address my other points?

When was the last time there were injuries, or property damage due to an earthquake on the east coast? If more people putting money in was the solution, then a mandatory public option would be best. It is not however. You want insurance or healthcare? How is me being for long term coverage ironic?

[The_pantless_hero]

If more people putting money in was the solution, then a mandatory public option would be best. It is not however.

More people putting money in is not the solution; however, that's how things get paid for thus leading to the solution of affordable healthcare for everyone.

How is me being for long term coverage ironic?

It is an indirect control on business.

[Capricana]

I'm a liberal. Can I complain? The very rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and the social safety net is falling apart. I'm keying the next $80k car I see.

Because that is the mature response.

Indeed. I agree - not very mature, Meoton.

Seriously, the USA is riven by class warfare. Thirty years of neoliberalism has thinned the middle class, expanded the poor and made the rich richer. I'm not advocating socialism, but it's clear where the USA is heading after going down the neolib path.

Or Government interventionist policies did that.... Who really knows?

[Sibirsky]

If more people putting money in was the solution, then a mandatory public option would be best. It is not however.

More people putting money in is not the solution; however, that's how things get paid for thus leading to the solution of affordable healthcare for everyone.

How is me being for long term coverage ironic?

It is an indirect control on business.

It is not control. There is nothing to prevent business to offer such alternatives. if they were allowed and customers demanded it. Without question, premiums for say a 20 year policy would be more expensive than a 1 year policy. There is more risk to the insurer. The insured however, would have no risk of being denied renewal, or the premium increasing during that 20 year span. That is what insurance is, transfer of risk.

[The_pantless_hero]

If more people putting money in was the solution, then a mandatory public option would be best. It is not however.

More people putting money in is not the solution; however, that's how things get paid for thus leading to the solution of affordable healthcare for everyone.

How is me being for long term coverage ironic?

It is an indirect control on business.

It is not control. There is nothing to prevent business to offer such alternatives. if they were allowed and customers demanded it. Without question, premiums for say a 20 year policy would be more expensive than a 1 year policy. There is more risk to the insurer. The insured however, would have no risk of being denied renewal, or the premium increasing during that 20 year span. That is what insurance is, transfer of risk.

And you know no one is going to offer long term coverage and you won't force it on them, thus this is an irrelevant and obfuscatory argument.

[Sibirsky]

If more people putting money in was the solution, then a mandatory public option would be best. It is not however.

More people putting money in is not the solution; however, that's how things get paid for thus leading to the solution of affordable healthcare for everyone.

How is me being for long term coverage ironic?

It is an indirect control on business.

It is not control. There is nothing to prevent business to offer such alternatives. if they were allowed and customers demanded it. Without question, premiums for say a 20 year policy would be more expensive than a 1 year policy. There is more risk to the insurer. The insured however, would have no risk of being denied renewal, or the premium increasing during that 20 year span. That is what insurance is, transfer of risk.

And you know no one is going to offer long term coverage and you won't force it on them, thus this is an irrelevant and obfuscatory argument.

If there was a market for it, it would be offered. Judging by the difference in 1/20 year rates, I may opt for such coverage. No, I won't force the insurers to provide it.

[Greed and Death]

They provide jobs. Usually with health care.

Which is why Union Carbide continues to deny any sort of responsibility for the Bhopal disaster, a disaster that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't run by penny pinching money grubbers who would rather toss away thousands of lives working for them in deliberately unsafe chemical plants with nonexistent safety measures and emergency protocols, letting them and their families die in the ensuing chemical cloud, than pay one red cent for better standards you mean?

Why would a company engaging in that sort of practice bother providing health care when they're quite willing to kill their workers through negligence hmmm?

How is an industrial accident caused by a disgruntled employee the company's fault?
You can produce safety measures all you want a clever former employee can get around them.

Lolwhat? Pray tell why you know more about the disaster than anyone else? Like what exactly was the catalyst for it? And how do you know that but do not know about the dozens of safety failures or the plant?

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

[The Black Forrest]

I despise the idle rich.

I wish them ill.

Lord of justice, rain down upon them all the ills they have caused others. Disease, for hogging the best health care. Poverty, for impoverishing others. Ugliness in place of lipo and botox. Humiliation in place of smugness. Let them taste the bottom rung of our justice system. Let them live in squalor and the threat of violence.

Lord you have been far too merciful far too long. Enough!

You are confused. Probably intentionally brainwashed. In any case, these rich, whom you despise, are not impoverishing others. They provide jobs. Usually with health care. They pay more than their fair share of taxes, for little in return. They pay for valuable services that you use. You should really look into this hatred of a group of people that you have. It is not healthy.

Nice sweeping generalization. I don't think I ever saw it used to paint a rosey picture of a class before. Kuddos.

So why do you bitch about having to pay people a certain wage because of the minimum wage laws?

You have full health care for your workers right?

[The_pantless_hero]

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

So let me get this straight. Your excuse for horrible lapses in safety and the primary safety features that would have prevented the tragedy not existing at all is to say some one could have sabotaged it anyway?

"Don't bother putting brakes on cars, some one could cut them anyway."
"Don't bother breakers on outlets, some one could disable them anyway."
"Don't bother putting sprinkler systems in buildings, some one could break them anyway."

[Big Jim P]

Don't tempt me.

[JuNii]

After this, I don't want to hear another American conservative complain about class warfare ever again.

why not?

[Tekania]

This is just not true.

Yes, it is... Name one "innovation"/"invention" the free-market has given us (besides fraud, because it's really good at inventing way to defraud people)?

Computers, Rockets, Space Travel, Medical Technologies... None of these were developed by "the free-market" nor its adherents... Free-Market corporate types steal or defraud the inventive talents of others for their own gain... The only inventive aspect is new ways to steal the ideas and inventions of others...

The appearance of wealth, is actually correct. Of course that is because of people like you engaging in fraud. Printing money out of thin air, keeping interest rates artificially low. You know, the Central Planners. People like me are against the Fed, and for at least Auditing it.

People like me? I personally do not like the fact that a private conglomerate is in control of US Central funds... It should be a publicly run operation of the government solely... Instead of private banking conglomerate with some oversight...

[The Black Forrest]

This is just not true.

Yes, it is... Name one "innovation"/"invention" the free-market has given us (besides fraud, because it's really good at inventing way to defraud people)?

Computers, Rockets, Space Travel, Medical Technologies... None of these were developed by "the free-market" nor its adherents... Free-Market corporate types steal or defraud the inventive talents of others for their own gain... The only inventive aspect is new ways to steal the ideas and inventions of others...

The appearance of wealth, is actually correct. Of course that is because of people like you engaging in fraud. Printing money out of thin air, keeping interest rates artificially low. You know, the Central Planners. People like me are against the Fed, and for at least Auditing it.

People like me? I personally do not like the fact that a private conglomerate is in control of US Central funds... It should be a publicly run operation of the government solely... Instead of private banking conglomerate with some oversight...

[New Manvir]

Long live the worldwide Workers revolution! Down with the capitalist pig-dog oppressors!Let us march in the streets my comrades and show these bourgeois scum the true might of the united proletariat! Now where the hell is my red flag? Screw it, I'll just get another one at Wal-Mart.





NOT A SERIOUS POST, JUST A JOKE IF YOU STILL HAVEN"T FIGURED IT OUT.

[Sibirsky]

This is just not true.

Yes, it is... Name one "innovation"/"invention" the free-market has given us (besides fraud, because it's really good at inventing way to defraud people)?

Computers, Rockets, Space Travel, Medical Technologies... None of these were developed by "the free-market" nor its adherents... Free-Market corporate types steal or defraud the inventive talents of others for their own gain... The only inventive aspect is new ways to steal the ideas and inventions of others...

The appearance of wealth, is actually correct. Of course that is because of people like you engaging in fraud. Printing money out of thin air, keeping interest rates artificially low. You know, the Central Planners. People like me are against the Fed, and for at least Auditing it.

People like me? I personally do not like the fact that a private conglomerate is in control of US Central funds... It should be a publicly run operation of the government solely... Instead of private banking conglomerate with some oversight...

I don't like the private bank running things either. It should be a publicly run operation of the government with money backed by gold.

From antiquity to present day China leads the way in terms of inventions. This is back when China was a big international trader, and had higher standards of living than Europe. Then China turned inward, and cut of trade. In recent times, the United States leads the way in inventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:A ... inventions

[Greed and Death]

http://bhopal.bard.edu/resources/docume ... report.pdf

The safety failures were a factor.
But that study is pretty clear it was intentional sabotage.
The main safety factor that might have prevented the tragedy was the refrigeration unit.
But even if that had been in use a clever saboteur could have got around it by disabling the unit.

So let me get this straight. Your excuse for horrible lapses in safety and the primary safety features that would have prevented the tragedy not existing at all is to say some one could have sabotaged it anyway?

"Don't bother putting brakes on cars, some one could cut them anyway."
"Don't bother breakers on outlets, some one could disable them anyway."
"Don't bother putting sprinkler systems in buildings, some one could break them anyway."

Not my excuse, just mentioning the terrible events were caused by a man.
Let see I want to make something break at a place I work at odds say I am going to be able to break it regardless of what safety features are in place, short of armed guards(and even then the whole BS your way through what your doing there part). Safety features are not designed to prevent intentional human intervention, they are designed to prevent accidental events.

Say your car with out breaks scenario. Lets say there is a car with no breaks and a angry school bus driver drives it into a kindergarten, I doubt the breaks would have helped.
who do you focus the blame on. The manufacturer or the man who drove the bus into the kindergarten?