Liberal Forum

That's right, just let them die in the street. Like I said, heartless bastard. Hey, great job. Cut out half my quote, then smear me. F*** off, lying troll. What I wrote in full was: Which is why I'd eliminate the federal law that requires treatment. Leave it to the states how to reform that. Not to mention, I'll bet 99.9% that between state law and funding, private charity and hospital policy for actual emergencies, no one would die. You can't debate issues honestly, so you lie and smear. F*** you, you lying troll. It has nothing to do with embarrassing Obama. Biggest lie you've ever told. You hate this president and would do anything to see him fail. Nevermind if people die in the process. As I've noted many times, you're a literal psychopath. I have ALWAYS supported good policy, no matter who's president. But trolls like you always screech the ugliest of lies. "You want people to die in the streets!" You didn't answer my question Puss? What kind of health care coverage do you have? I say you don't have the guts to answer that question. Prove me wrong. F*** you and your endless lies and smears, troll.

Interesting idea, but it's like all con plans. It hardly helps the uninsured. Who might not be affected much if at all by the deduction? Many low-income and uninsured people. According to Treasury Department and White House estimates, the proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by 3 million to 5 million people. that's it? wtf? That number is low relative to the total number of uninsured (over 46 million) for two reasons primarily: 43 percent of the uninsured have no income tax liability, according to Kaiser Family Foundation. But they would still get a payroll tax credit on the wages they earn if they buy health insurance. Many uninsured still won't be able to afford coverage even with the new deduction. (More than 50 percent of the uninsured are in the 15 percent tax bracket or less). Others won't want to part with the cost of insurance premiums up front, even though they'll get it back on their tax return. To provide more of the uninsured with coverage, President Bush is also proposing the Affordable Choices Initiative. Although details are still sketchy, the program would offer funding to states that reform their insurance market so as to provide affordable basic coverage for all. The federal funds would be redirected from other programs to help states subsidize coverage for low-income people. You can't fix everything with a tax cut. http://money.cnn.com...ffect/index.htm The point was not the merits of the plan. The point was your eroneous implication that the Repubs did not come up with one. Whether you agreed with the plan or not they did have one. Of course, it was killed. Just like SS.

Liz Cheney Throws Sister Under The Bus In Effort To Win Senate SeatHow would you feel if you were watching the news and your sister came on the air to denounce your marriage? That's exactly what happened to Dick Cheney's daughter Mary this past weekend as she and her wife watched "Fox News Sunday."Dick's other, terrifically ambitious but graceless daughter, Liz, went on the show as part of her quest for a Senate seat in Wyoming. To the nation, she announced, "I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage." Then she added a comment about her lesbian sister, Mary, who is married and has two children. "I love Mary very much, I love her family very much. This is just an issue on which we disagree."Mary and her wife didnt know their marriage was an issue for Liz, especially since daddy Dick has long embraced it. Watching the revelation on Fox News was a helluva way to find out.Mary's wife, Heather Poe, fired back on Facebook. Her terrific answer not only slammed Liz's words, but also pointed out both her hypocrisy and the fact that shes a carpetbagger politician:I was watching my sister-in-law on Fox News Sunday (yes Liz, in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law) and was very disappointed to hear her say I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 she didnt hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us.To have her now say she doesnt support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.I cant help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other.I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.Mary Cheney supported her wife's statements. She reposted them on her Facebook page, along with this message for her sister: "Liz - this isn't just an issue on which we disagree - you're just wrong - and on the wrong side of history."Liz Cheney should be very proud, throwing her own sister under the bus in order to pander to Republican primary voters. I'm sure there isn't anyone she would hesitate to stab in the back in order to further her own political ambitions.

Do you not understand that treating people who don't have insurance in emergency rooms is the least cost efficient way to do things?Which is why I'd eliminate the federal law that requires treatment.That's right, just let them die in the street.Like I said, heartless bastard.F*** you, you lying troll. It has nothing to do with embarrassing Obama.Biggest lie you've ever told.You hate this president and would do anything to see him fail.Nevermind if people die in the process.You didn't answer my question Puss?What kind of health care coverage do you have?I say you don't have the guts to answer that question.Prove me wrong.

Go back and read the history. The Republicans had a plan but the dems rejected it. Here is a start. The beginning of an article from forbes: In January of 2007, George W. Bush was entering the final stretch of his two-term presidency. Bush, however, chose not to ride off simply into the sunset. Instead, he put forth a comprehensive plan to reform the private health insurance market. It’s long-forgotten now, because Democrats had just regained control of Congress, and these newly-empowered legislators pronounced the Bush plan “dead on arrival.” In many ways, though, the Bush proposal was impressive and credible. It would have expanded coverage while reducing the deficit. Should it serve as the starting point for replacing Obamacare? http://www.forbes.co...aced-obamacare/ Interesting idea, but it's like all con plans. It hardly helps the uninsured. Who might not be affected much if at all by the deduction? Many low-income and uninsured people. According to Treasury Department and White House estimates, the proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by 3 million to 5 million people. that's it? wtf? That number is low relative to the total number of uninsured (over 46 million) for two reasons primarily: 43 percent of the uninsured have no income tax liability, according to Kaiser Family Foundation. But they would still get a payroll tax credit on the wages they earn if they buy health insurance. Many uninsured still won't be able to afford coverage even with the new deduction. (More than 50 percent of the uninsured are in the 15 percent tax bracket or less). Others won't want to part with the cost of insurance premiums up front, even though they'll get it back on their tax return. To provide more of the uninsured with coverage, President Bush is also proposing the Affordable Choices Initiative. Although details are still sketchy, the program would offer funding to states that reform their insurance market so as to provide affordable basic coverage for all. The federal funds would be redirected from other programs to help states subsidize coverage for low-income people. You can't fix everything with a tax cut. http://money.cnn.com...ffect/index.htm

I just came across this article from 2009 from Consumer Reports about these individual health insurance plans that consumers get on their own.This was pre-ACA.Many people who believe they have adequate health insurance actually have coverage so riddled with loopholes, limits, exclusions, and gotchas that it won't come close to covering their expenses if they fall seriously ill, a Consumer Reports investigation has found.At issue are so-called individual plans that consumers get on their own when, say, they've been laid off from a job but are too young for Medicare or too "affluent" for Medicaid. An estimated 14,000 Americans a day lose their job-based coverage, and many might be considering individual insurance for the first time in their lives.But increasingly, individual insurance is a nightmare for consumers: more costly than the equivalent job-based coverage, and for those in less-than-perfect health, unaffordable at best and unavailable at worst. Moreover, the lack of effective consumer protections in most states allows insurers to sell plans with "affordable" premiums whose skimpy coverage can leave people who get very sick with the added burden of ruinous medical debt.Just ask Janice and Gary Clausen of Audubon, Iowa. They told us they purchased a United Healthcare limited benefit plan sold through AARP that cost about $500 a month after Janice lost her accountant job and her work-based coverage when the auto dealership that employed her closed in 2004."I didn't think it sounded bad," Janice said. "I knew it would only cover $50,000 a year, but I didn't realize how much everything would cost." The plan proved hopelessly inadequate after Gary received a diagnosis of colon cancer. His 14-month treatment, including surgery and chemotherapy, cost well over $200,000. Janice, 64, and Gary, 65, expect to be paying off medical debt for the rest of their lives.For our investigation, we hired a national expert to help us evaluate a range of real policies from many states and interviewed Americans who bought those policies. We talked to insurance experts and regulators to learn more. Here is what we found:Heath insurance policies with gaping holes are offered by insurers ranging from small companies to brand-name carriers such as Aetna and United Healthcare. And in most states, regulators are not tasked with evaluating overall coverage.Disclosure requirements about coverage gaps are weak or nonexistent. So it's difficult for consumers to figure out in advance what a policy does or doesn't cover, compare plans, or estimate their out-of-pocket liability for a medical catastrophe. It doesn't help that many people who have never been seriously ill might have no idea how expensive medical care can be.People of modest means in many states might have no good options for individual coverage. Plans with affordable premiums can leave them with crushing medical debt if they fall seriously ill, and plans with adequate coverage may have huge premiums.There are some clues to a bad policy that consumers can spot. We tell you what they are, and how to avoid them if possible.Even as policymakers debate a major overhaul of the health-care system, government officials can take steps now to improve the current market.We think a good health-care plan should pay for necessary care without leaving you with lots of debt or high out-of-pocket costs. That includes hospital, ambulance, emergency-room, and physician fees; prescription drugs; outpatient treatments; diagnostic and imaging tests; chemotherapy, radiation, rehabilitation and physical therapy; mental-health treatment; and durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs. Remember, health insurance is supposed to protect you in case of a catastrophically expensive illness, not simply cover your routine costs as a generally healthy person. And many individual plans do nowhere near the job.Compounding the problem of limited policies is the fact that policyholders are often unaware of those limits-until it's too late.Read more: http://www.consumerr...plans/index.htmThe majority of the people who file for a medically-related bankruptcy actually have health insurance.They have policies like these that have gaps in their coverage, large co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services.http://www.cnn.com/2....medical.bills/And Republicans and some cowardly Democrats want people to be able to keep these junk policies.They are whining about people being dropped by their insurance carriers as if this is something new.This is also PRE Affordable Care Act.How Insurers Limit and Deny Care in the Individual Health Insurance Market

You didn't answer my question Puss?What kind of health care coverage do you have?I say you don't have the guts to answer that question.Prove me wrong.F*** you and your endless lies and smears, troll.So I was right.It's obvious that you are on some kind of government program, otherwise you would have no problem answering that question.Hypocrite.

So I was right. It's obvious that you are on some kind of government program, otherwise you would have no problem answering that question. Hypocrite. I love psychotic moonbat humor. Can't you even tell believable lies? F*** you and your endless lies and smears, troll. Liz Cheney should be very proud, throwing her own sister under the bus in order to pander to Republican primary voters. I'm sure there isn't anyone she would hesitate to stab in the back in order to further her own political ambitions. Honestly expressing her own values is "throwing her sister under the bus?" F*** you and your endless lies and smears, troll.

It's great to come in here and see Clem getting his *** handed to him once again, and by what he calls a 'stupid, ignorant 18-year-old kid'. It's the only arrow he has left in his quiver. Calling people names like a petulant 5 year old.That moonbat "hands me my a**?" You can't tell the truth to save your troll life......my reading about Economics and business for over 30 years made me an ignoramus.Maybe you're reading the wrong stuff.Maybe you can suggest some Socialist/Marxist drivel for me to look over.Oh yeah, my reading about Economics and business for over 30 years made me an "ignoramus."But you, child genius, understand the subject.public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gifStop being so painfully stupid.Because in your fairy tale world of capitalist markets, everyone can find whichever job they like or want at any given time. But back in the actual world, reality is quite different. Whichever job they like or want? I've never claimed that nor seen a single Free Market economist do so either. Job markets change, and people need to prepare for them.Speaking of reality, you're miles from it.And given Obama's glorious 11.5% real unemployment rate, the job market generally sucks.Do you have a quote of mine expressing support for that?Are you denying that you defended Tom Delay and his shameful behavior in supporting the sweat shop owners in the Northern Marianas Islands, and blocking any legislation that would have helped those workers? Because if you are, I can easily dig up your posts on that subject.Here's the accusation made against me.you have been an outspoken proponent of sweatshops and involuntary servitude (children who work for their entire lifetimes to pay off their parents' debt in developing countries), none of this is surprising.Quote me supporting any such thing, liar.

Avenger_of_Justice: you have been an outspoken proponent of sweatshops and involuntary servitudeQuote me supporting any such thing, liar.Are you denying that you defended Tom Delay and his shameful behavior in supporting the sweat shop owners in the Northern Marianas Islands, and blocking any legislation that would have helped those workers? Because if you are, I can easily dig up your posts on that subject.I see you ignored my question Puss.I wonder why?Maybe this is why......What Clem said about sweat shop workers in the Northern Marianas Islands:paying workers five times what they'd earn at home is a success.And keeping workers penned up like cattle, behind barbed wire is okay with you, I guess?So what if they earn five times what they could at home? They are locked up and forced to pay for their housing, food and medical care. You call that a success.They agreed to live in separate areas, because they're guest workers, not citizens.If those conditions are so terrible, why did they agree to work under them?MistyBlue, on 14 January 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:These workers, many of them Chinese were tricked into going to The Marianas. They paid as much as $7,000, which is an enormous sum of money for them, for the promise of a job in America. Instead they were taken to a U.S. Territory, where the clothing made in those sweat shops bears a 'Made In USA' label. Some of them were even forced into prostitution and forced to have abortions if they became pregnant.They had no chance of ever saving up enough money to get out of that situation.Tom Delay was the person who was singularly responsible for blocking any legislation that would have helped these workers.And you support him in that.No legislation is necessary, so as usual, you're dishonestly smearing conservatives.No legislation was necessary to help workers that were forced into indentured servitude and prostitution and forced to have abortions.There's your free market capitalism at it's best, huh Puss?Avenger_of_Justice is not the liar, you are. Edited by MistyBlue, 16 April 2011 - 11:07 PM.

How could one possibly ignore you, puss?

How could one possibly ignore you, puss?It is hard to ignore Clem.

It is hard to ignore Clem. Ahh he is easy to ignore, that mighty ham wallet that you command is not. Smells like

Ahh he is easy to ignore, that mighty ham wallet that you command is not. Smells like I'm going to ignore that. You must be half in the bag as usual.

I'm going to ignore that. You must be half in the bag as usual.nah, just replaying some of your past comments in my mind. Can't do that half bagged. Got a few days off, and having some chitslinging fun.

I'm going to ignore that. You must be half in the bag as usual.ROFL!!!! Isn't that a compliment?

I have 1/2 a bag left if anyone needs it.

On his Thursday show, Rush Limbaugh tore into what he called President Obama's base.Limbaugh said that the president was attempting to placate his base during his deficit reduction speech, and he used a panoply of epithets to describe the base."His base is made up of people even more vile than he is," he said. "You've got...a lot of it is just walking human debris on the Democrat base side." He noted that many on the left have been unhappy with Obama."That bunch of people, those savages that make up the Obama base, are fit to be tied," he said. He had to get them back, and the one way to do it was to go out and savage us. That's what they love. That's what they get off on. That's their orgasm. 'Cause these people can't find willing mates."AudioIt's ironic to hear this bloated, drug addled gasbag, who jets off to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra in his pocket talk about other people who can't find 'willing mates'.When I heard Rush utter the word 'orgasm' I threw up in my mouth a little. Edited by MistyBlue, 16 April 2011 - 11:19 PM.

It's ironic to hear this bloated, drug addled gasbag, who jets off to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra in his pocket talk about other people who can't find 'willing mates'.When I heard Rush utter the word 'orgasm' I threw up in my mouth a little.I heard that he was meeting Charlie Rangel in Costa Rica for an all expenses paid congressional hoe banging.

Mike Pences Debt Ceiling Flip-FlopRep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said on Sunday, I will not support an increase in the debt ceiling without real and meaningful changes in spending in the short-term and in the long-term. However, back in 2002 Pence felt very differently about the debt ceiling. During a speech on the House floor, Pence said that the debt ceiling needs to be increased because failure to do so could threaten Social Security benefits. I truly believe if you owe debts, pay debts, Pence said:PENCE: I rise today as a conservative Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I did not come here to increase the governments debt. I came here believing, as so many people I represent believe, that if you owe debts, pay debts.I spoke to an elderly woman on a radio program in Richmond, Indiana, today, in the heart of the heartland district that I represent. And Mr. Speaker, she said with fear in her voice that she was worried that a conservative like me would not support raising the debt ceiling and would put at risk her Social Security check. She assumed that my loathing of red ink would cause me to vote in such a way or fail to act in such a way that it would jeopardize her benefits and the benefits of people that she loves.Well, I assured her then and I rise today to assure all those that are listening, Mr. Speaker, that I will not do that. I truly believe if you owe debts, pay debts.Pence is far from the only Republican who once found raising the debt ceiling to be a noncontroversial task worthy of wide support, but now wants to extract concessions in return for doing it.VideoChuck Grassleys Debt Ceiling Flip-FlopSen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), in keeping with other GOP lawmakers, recently stated that the GOP should not vote to increase the debt limit unless Democrats and President Obama make major concessions on federal spending cuts. That position, however, is exactly opposite the one he took in 2006, when he urged his Senate colleagues to unanimously vote to increase the debt limit, saying it should not be used to control government debt and deficits.In a recent interview with Newsmax TV, Grassley said the GOP should use the vote as leverage to get a lot of things done on spending and budgetary changes:GRASSLEY: My take is that we should have thought about not increasing the debt limit before we spent the money. []But the point is, weve got tremendous leverage by not increasing the debt to get a lot of things done that we want done tackling entitlements and tackling a constitutional amendment requiring a balance budget. I support moving in both of those areas.But in March 2006, Grassley took the polar opposite position to the one he is taking now. Before the Senate ultimately voted to increase the debt limit to $8.965 trillion, then-Senate Finance Chairman Grassley told his colleagues that the debt limit was not an accurate predictor of future fiscal problems, and that they should not use it to make assumptions about those problems. The Senate should not have an extended debate about the issue, Grassley said, because not increasing the debt limit is a choice that we shouldnt make and we wouldnt want to make: GRASSLEY: Given these facts, it should be obvious to everyone that the federal debt limit provides a misleading and inaccurate picture of the governments future liabilities. Efforts to use the statutory debt limit to control government debt and deficits cannot succeed because it ignores the long-term budget problems. []And so I would hope we would not have an extended debate and a lot of breast-beating about the issue of increasing the national debt. Now there will be a lot of debate about it, a lot of political points trying to be made, but the point is, weve got to keep the business of government going. []This ought to pass unanimously. It wont. But it ought to.During the presidency of George W. Bush, Grassley viewed the debt limit increase as such a non-issue that he admonished his Senate colleagues for not voting for it unanimously. Now, however, hes willing to play politics on the issue just like the rest of his party.LinkDuring Bush Presidency, Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote yea, Kyl votes nay.May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.Database searches revealed no demands from the four legislators that debt increases come accompanied by drastic spending cuts, as there are now. In fact, the May 2003 debt limit increase passed the Senate the same day as the $350 billion Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When Bush was in office, the current Republican leaders viewed increasing the debt limit as vital to keeping Americas economy running. But with Obama in the White House, its nothing more than a political pawn.Link