Suzanne Somers is now an "expert" on health care policy

[Shadow Wolf]

It says alot about Americans in that so many of us still believe all the nonsense about the Canadian health care system, and how so many of us somehow believe our former system of everyone fending for themselves is better.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It says alot about Americans in that so many of us still believe all the nonsense about the Canadian health care system, and how so many of us somehow believe our former system of everyone fending for themselves is better.

How dare we treat everyone, make it cheaper per person, have prevetative care and provide care on a "as needed" basis where those in more dire need get it first!

 

[Aquitaine]

Jack Thompson is apparently an "expert" on Video Games (lolwut). I pretty much disregard anything which is preceded by "Experts say/warn that...".

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see...you assume because we both get our information from secondary sources that they're equally credible even though much of what you've been presenting has been refuted....OK, I see...

Im so glad you won. Oh dear. How could I have been so wrong?

And when it doesn't I suspect you'll remain quiet and move on to another bone to chew on.

Yep. I see Obamacare now trudging along paving a way of health and prosperity for every single American who now enjoys saving oodles and oodles of cash of which they can put in their piggybanks.

Thank you Obama for giving me the hard earned money of young men and women just starting out in life of whom are happily making ends meet. We all qualify for subsidy. Yay!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Im so glad you won. Oh dear. How could I have been so wrong?

I didn't "win" anything....We've simply countered and refuted your talking points and claims....

Yep. I see Obamacare now trudging along paving a way of health and prosperity for every single American who now enjoys saving oodles and oodles of cash of which they can put in their piggybanks.

Thank you Obama for giving me the hard earned money of young men and women just starting out in life of whom are happily making ends meet. We all qualify for subsidy. Yay!

Ahh, I see.....You take issue with that aspect...but fail to understand that much in our society is like this. I assume you're against Social Security as well as other subsidized programs?....Should the federal government stop providing disaster relief to the states..should they stop providing small business loans...should we tun the Parks over to private companies....see much of what we, the people, pay has a benefit to others up and down the ladder.

I'm in favor of cutting or eliminating subsidies to corporations. Are you with me? I'm in favor of cutting the salaries of Congress considering on average they make $174,000 a year (from my tax money)...yet they (under Eric Cantor's leadership) are working about 115 days a year...Are you with me?

 

[Revoltingest]

Should the federal government stop providing disaster relief to the states....

Yes.
The states should prepare & provide for their own disasters. After all, they're predictable, & they should insure & ensure against damage. But they don't because they know the fed will be there. Time for the states to grow up, & stop depending upon Uncle Sam's teat.

...should they stop providing small business loans...

Yes.
Btw, they don't provide the loans. They guarantee them, & charge for it.

should we tun the Parks over to private companies....

Yes. Then they'd be better run, cover their own costs, & not close every time the Dems & Pubs have a spat.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes.
The states should prepare & provide for their own disasters. After all, they're predictable, & they should insure & ensure against damage. But they don't because they know the fed will be there. Time for the states to grow up, & stop depending upon Uncle Sam's teat.

They can't afford to. All the states are on the "government done"...Some more than others. Sandy cost more money to one particular state than that state could actually save for such disaster.

Yes.
Btw, they don't provide the loans. They guarantee them, & charge for it.

Yes..that's what I meant. So do you keep your money in a bank and are you against FDIC?

Yes. Then they'd be better run, cover their own costs, & not close every time the Dems & Pubs have a spat.

How do you know they would be better run?

 

[Revoltingest]

They can't afford to. All the states are on the "government done"...Some more than others. Sandy cost more money to one particular state than that state could actually save for such disaster.

They certainly can afford to, but they choose not to. Many measures aren't even costly, eg, zoning & building codes to weather expected calamities. The harder part is to save some money & maintain resources to face difficulties. But it can be done if they have to.

Yes..that's what I meant. So do you keep your money in a bank and are you against FDIC?

You've asked me this before, but ignored my answer.
It seems you've a point to make, but you don't.
Why is this?

How do you know they would be better run?

I've been to many national parks, & see that they're not customer oriented.
Recall that during the gov "shut down", parks closed down not only themselves, but also took steps to interfere with private businesses & prevent using non-park land to view monuments. They're run by the same folk who staff the DMV & IRS. And as the gov shut down showed, they cannot be depended upon to stay open.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes.
The states should prepare & provide for their own disasters. After all, they're predictable, & they should insure & ensure against damage. But they don't because they know the fed will be there. Time for the states to grow up, & stop depending upon Uncle Sam's teat.

How are natural disasters predictable? How often does a storm like Sandy hit the Northern East coast that hard? How do you know when and where a tornado will appear, and determine what path it will follow? How do you know when and where an earthquake will strike? What about a wild fire or volcanic eruption?
And why should the citizens be left for dead by the federal government they pay tax money to? What if the cost of damages exceeds what a state could have saved up and prepared for? What if, like many states, there simply is not enough money?

 

[Revoltingest]

How are natural disasters predictable? How often does a storm like Sandy hit the Northern East coast that hard? How do you know when and where a tornado will appear, and determine what path it will follow? How do you know when and where an earthquake will strike? What about a wild fire or volcanic eruption?
And why should the citizens be left for dead by the federal government they pay tax money to? What if the cost of damages exceeds what a state could have saved up and prepared for? What if, like many states, there simply is not enough money?

An advantage of making disaster planning & preparation more local is that the results would be better than FEMA's efforts. And the increased local tax burden would lessen the fed tax burden.
Some exmaples:
- Atlantic & gulf states should prepare for hurricanes & sea level rise.
- The midwest should prepare for tornadoes & their aftermath.
- Northern states should prepare for blizzards. Residents should have supplies & plans. States & towns should have plows & plans.
- People who build seashore homes in some areas should accept the risk of higher insurance rates. Zoning laws might even prevent building in particularly dangerous areas.
- Earthquake prone areas (eg, SF, LA) should have building codes which enhance survivability.

We have heavy storms here at times, so I keep spare food, spare fuel, a snow thrower, a plow truck, several generators, spare water, back-up heating system, etc. Many other I know prepare similarly. This is better than waiting for FEMA to send us a trailer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

An advantage of making disaster planning & preparation more local is that the results would be better than FEMA's efforts. And the increased local tax burden would lessen the fed tax burden.
Some exmaples:
- Atlantic & gulf states should prepare for hurricanes & sea level rise.
- The midwest should prepare for tornadoes & their aftermath.
- Northern states should prepare for blizzards. Residents should have supplies & plans. States & towns should have plows & plans.
- People who build seashore homes in some areas should accept the risk of higher insurance rates. Zoning laws might even prevent building in particularly dangerous areas.
- Earthquake prone areas (eg, SF, LA) should have building codes which enhance survivability.

We have heavy storms here at times, so I keep spare food, spare fuel, a snow thrower, a plow truck, several generators, spare water, back-up heating system, etc. Many other I know prepare similarly. This is better than waiting for FEMA to send us a trailer.

Those places prepare as best as they can. California has buildings on foundations that will move with the earth, and Florida only allows certain roof shingles to be used on homes so they do not become missiles during a hurricane. And I have seen plenty of homes on platforms along coasts and flood zones. But how do you plan for a tornado, other than having a basement, and waiting it out and hoping your home doesn't get blown over.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those places prepare as best as they can. California has buildings on foundations that will move with the earth, and Florida only allows certain roof shingles to be used on homes so they do not become missiles during a hurricane. And I have seen plenty of homes on platforms along coasts and flood zones. But how do you plan for a tornado, other than having a basement, and waiting it out and hoping your home doesn't get blown over.

I know that many communities take some measures, but I believe they can do far better. New Orleans is a great example of people building where they shouldn't, taking few precautions, & individuals doing next to nothing for themselves in advance.
Tornado resistant construction is doable.
Tornado Safe Homes
But tornadoes are relatively small scale phenomena (compared to earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, tsunamis, etc). FEMA generally ignores their damage, so this is already up to states & localities.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's according to a recent article in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. This confirms the WSJ policy of amplifying the voice of anyone saying anything and calling them an "expert", as long as this serves the purpose of pushing public opinion in a rightward direction.

Note that the article has already had to issue a 3 part correction, and has been taken to task here and here:
Suzanne Somers, expert on nothing - latimes.com
In defense of Canada | The Incidental Economist

To be fair, Suzanne Somers is a veritable genius compared to most conservatives these days.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They certainly can afford to, but they choose not to. Many measures aren't even costly, eg, zoning & building codes to weather expected calamities. The harder part is to save some money & maintain resources to face difficulties. But it can be done if they have to.

So wait a minute....You're serious.....?....New Orleans had enough money to solve their disaster? New Jersey had 50/60 Billion Dollars and didn't need Federal help?

How about Colorado? They like their recall elections but when it comes to disaster relief two of the Republicans that voted against Sandy Relief had their hands out asking the federal government for funds because they had exhausted all of their funding for relief

You've asked me this before, but ignored my answer.
It seems you've a point to make, but you don't.
Why is this?

May be I missed it. I apologize for that. Is it OK the say that...you do keep your money in a bank that's FDIC secured?

I've been to many national parks, & see that they're not customer oriented.
Recall that during the gov "shut down", parks closed down not only themselves, but also took steps to interfere with private businesses

And it has already been explained and shown that if a business is on federal land it is the right of the government during a shutdown to close down. Many of these business rely on federal resources such as fire/rescue and police services amongst other services.

And as the shut down showed, they cannot be depended upon to stay open.

No one has a problem with them when they're open. The moral is.....Congress needs to stop manufacturing crisis that cause a government shutdown. Time will tell to see if Republicans allow Ted Cruz and his party to do a repeat.

 

[Revoltingest]

So wait a minute....You're serious.....?....New Orleans had enough money to solve their disaster? New Jersey had 50/60 Billion Dollars and didn't need Federal help?

Not at all what I said.
Are planning to play your opposite inference game again?

How about Colorado? They like their recall elections but when it comes to disaster relief two of the Republicans that voted against Sandy Relief had their hands out asking the federal government for funds because they had exhausted all of their funding for relief

Have you not yet figured out that I'm not a Republican?
I cannot speak for them.

May be I missed it. I apologize for that. Is it OK the say that...you do keep your money in a bank that's FDIC secured?

It's the only kind of bank I can find.

And it has already been explained and shown that if a business is on federal land it is the right of the government during a shutdown to close down. Many of these business rely on federal resources such as fire/rescue and police services amongst other services.

The right to do something does not mean that one ought to exercise that right.
The admin went out of its way to do harm during the shut down. This is wrong.

No one has a problem with them when they're open. The moral is.....Congress needs to stop manufacturing crisis that cause a government shutdown. Time will tell to see if Republicans allow Ted Cruz and his party to do a repeat.

Congress will do what it does, not what it needs to do.
Privatized services will be more immune to shut downs.

 

[Magic Man]

So wait a minute....You're serious.....?....New Orleans had enough money to solve their disaster? New Jersey had 50/60 Billion Dollars and didn't need Federal help?

How about Colorado? They like their recall elections but when it comes to disaster relief two of the Republicans that voted against Sandy Relief had their hands out asking the federal government for funds because they had exhausted all of their funding for relief

I believe what he's saying is that states could have enough money for such things, if they prepared accordingly. I don't know whether that's true, but it is different from saying they currently do have that capability.

 

[metis]

A problem with the states handling it is that it creates a sort of "negative competition". States that provide good health-care coverage must pay for it, and this obviously is going be done through higher taxes, which in turn tends to dissuade businesses from moving or starting there. We see this being played out with businesses looking for locations where low taxes are present and also where they can get some tax breaks.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Here's another politically active blond headed comedian.
[youtube]Xdk0Bt3EbXI[/youtube]
PolitiChicks Say Obama's Birth Certificate is Fake! (Ep 2) - YouTube

She was better as a comedian.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not at all what I said.
Are planning to play your opposite inference game again?

Never said or inferred which is why my questions were followed by a question mark. I honestly wanted to know if you thought that these states could have saved up over $50 Billion Dollars for disaster relief. And since we went through a recession do you think these states would have had to dip into their stash of disaster relief funds?

Have you not yet figured out that I'm not a Republican?
I cannot speak for them.

How convenient.......

It's the only kind of bank I can find.

The right to do something does not mean that one ought to exercise that right.
The admin went out of its way to do harm during the shut down. This is wrong.

You haven't been able to prove this. Every time you linked an article to suggest as much imbedded in the article was the reason why when during a government shutdown such actions have to be taken. Take the parks for instant. Out of a 24,000 person staff....21,000 were furloughed. So with a 3000 person staff covering all of the parks etc. there was no way to keep the parks open, provide adequate fire/rescue and security among other services they provide. This means people "living" in homes on federal land even though those homes are designated as summer and/or temporary recreation spots can no longer "squat" on government land. This means the restaurant owner operating his business on government land is subject to the law. If this wasn't in the articles you presented then it was in the ones I posted.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I believe what he's saying is that states could have enough money for such things, if they prepared accordingly. I don't know whether that's true, but it is different from saying they currently do have that capability.

I'm not sure they "could have" either. We're sort or out of the recession in a weak economy so if a state was running a $50 Billion Dollar surplus I suspect much of it would be gone by now..thus not leaving very much for disaster relief. It's nice when a state can run a couple hundred million dollar surplus or even a billion or two, three or four (See: California......)....but many of them would be hard press to run a $50 Billion dollar surplus, sustain it through hard economic times without federal help.