justinb138

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    3,115

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by justinb138

  1. justinb138
    So the answer is more bureaucracy?
  2. justinb138
    Never would have expected "It's Bush's fault".
  3. justinb138
    Fixed it for you.
  4. justinb138
    Yeah, that's not a can of worms is it? Let's just open it and see what happens? Unfortunately, it's far more complicated than just waving a magic wand. Never said it'd be an easy thing to do, just saying that I disagree with tax policies of this nature.
  5. justinb138
    I think a good start would be to stop the tax breaks and subsidies for people that have a bunch of kids.
  6. justinb138
    By "government health care" I'm referring to the plans currently being discussed in the House/Senate. That make it a little clearer?
  7. justinb138
    Wonderful. Care to answer any of the questions ?
  8. justinb138
    You say this plan will reduce health care costs. What if it doesn't? You say it won't result in rationing of care. What if it does? You say this won't add to the deficit. What if it does? You say this won't put the insurance companies out of business. What if it does? Whether you think it will accomplish it's goals or not, what do you think will be done to remedy the situation if it fails miserably? Will it be repealed? Will the next group of bureaucrats decide they're the ones that can "fix" it? Will it continue to stay in place even if it results in the exact opposite of it's stated goals? Will politicians continue to pour money into a failing program?
  9. justinb138
    Only 3-5 months worth of work each year. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
  10. justinb138
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6HGmTEc_kIALqJfG0r_WSGGFGZgD9C9PGK00
  11. justinb138
    You forgot to add the tags.
  12. justinb138
    So you assume 4 car washes in a year, and 4 oil changes, that's 8 claims for every car in america - or a total of 2.03 Billion claims annually. How many people would the insurance companies have to hire to manage those claims ? How much more fraud would there be in the system? Would prices stay the same? Doubtful - if a third party is paying, people typically don't care how much something costs. What our country considers health "insurance" isn't insurance.
  13. justinb138
    I was talking any president at any given time, he can strike uo to 535 votes. You are aware that a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate (354) can override a presidential veto aren't you? FAIL again.
  14. justinb138
    My point is that it's not designed to cover an unexpected or catastrophic event like all other forms of insurance are. How often are people expected to make claims on Homeowner's or Auto insurance policies? It's a fairly rare event for most people. Health insurance is expected to cover routine events, like a doctor's visit due to a common illness - an expected and likely event. How much would car insurance cost if the government said it had to cover oil changes and car washes? How much of an increase in administrative costs for the insurance company would there be? How much more would your $20 oil change cost if each service place had to hire a few people to bill insurance companies?
  15. justinb138
    What surprises me is that little reference has been made to the Mass. plan, on which, if I'm not mistaken, the federal program is modeled after. Here's a link to a recent Rasmussen poll . In short, it says only 32% consider the plan successful, and that 75% believed that the quality of care stayed the same (51%), or got worse (24%). The original projections for the program were to cover 215,000 people at a cost of 725 million, but now is expected to cover 342,000 at 1.35 billion. I don't know the numbers, but I know it's had budget issues. Here's an article about it, although I'm not familiar with the source:
  16. justinb138
    I might presume the same, if this person hadn't endorsed the democratic candidate after dropping out of the race.
  17. justinb138
    Fixed it for you. Constitutionally? Only congress (War Powers Act of 1973). In reality, however, no congressman wants their name on a formal declaration of war that might come back to bite them in the ass - so we're left with the Iraq Resolution (HJ114)
  18. justinb138
    What we consider "health insurance" isn't insurance. It's pseudo-prepaid medical coverage. The closest comparison I can make would be auto insurance coverage covering car washes and oil changes. What other type of insurance covers routine and expected events?
  19. justinb138
    Moderate Republican, my ass. Well, it depends on how you look at it. Had she won, the Republicans would have retained that seat in the House. And then, sure - they'd have to do what they could to keep her in line. But as it stands, a Democrat is in that seat, rather than a Republican. If that works for the Republicans, then that's their choice to make. But in an era when every vote - both at the voting booth and in Congress - counts mightily, it sends a message out that if you don't pass a litmus test of conservatism, the Republican party doesn't want you. But, as I said, that's their choice to make. What good is an R beside the name if they're going to vote with the D's?
  20. justinb138
    I know people that are wrong about alot of things too. Well, please, tell us who the hell IS really running things over there?
  21. justinb138
    I know people that are wrong about alot of things too.
  22. justinb138
    Gotta love statistics you can make up and never be proven wrong. Even better is the fact that they spent 18 million dollars on a website to keep track of it, and they can't even get that right.
  23. justinb138
    If you're going to quote Wikipedia as something you consider an honest source: If you believe wikipedia is accurate, either your basing your original statements on good data and you're wrong about the Cato institute being partisan, or you're basing your statements on bad data and you're right about the Cato institute. Which is it?
  24. justinb138
    No, the video infers it all Dems taking Freddie and Fannie money. That's dishonest. It's not inferring anything, it's simply a confirmation that politicians don't know shit when it comes to economics.
  25. justinb138
    It's video of Chris Dodd himself, not sure how even you can attempt to spin that as dishonest. Or are you implying that the Cato Institute superimposed Chris Dodd into a video telling everyone that Freddie and Fannie were financially sound as late as 2008 and somehow managed to get it on television with no one, including Chris Dodd, noticing?