Rick Perry Clueless On Use Of Executive Presidential Powers To Kill Obamacare

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Rick Ungar | Forbes


http://i.imgur.com/OCAls.jpg

Looking toward to a not-so-distant future where Rick Perry could occupy the Oval Office, candidate Perry had this to say when speaking last week in South Carolina-


If I'm so fortunate to be elected the president of the United States, on Day One, when I walk into the Oval Office, there will be an executive order on that desk that eliminates as much of ObamaCare that I can have done with an executive order.

-Via MSNBC

What should disturb you about this vision of the future is not so much that a President Perry would try to bring Obamacare to an end as that is to be expected from any GOP contender.What should give you pause is that, in a Perry White House, our 45th president would begin his term by signing an executive order that would be, for all real purposes, a blank page.

Talk about an inauspicious beginning as representative of what I fear we might continue to expect from a President Perry.

Like it or not, there is virtually nothing a president can do by executive order to overturn this legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the current President.

While a future Congress could, theoretically, bring the Accountable Care Act to an end, and while the Supreme Court may yet destroy part or all of the law before Perry needs to make good on a promise that he cannot possibly keep, the simple fact is that there is really no impact on the law that might result from such an executive order.

Perry is not the first GOP candidate to attempt to bamboozle his audience with such nonsense. Michele Bachmann has promised to single-handedly take down the law right after she gets gas prices down under $2.00 a gallon. Mitt Romney has also promised to devote his first day in office to giving every state in the nation a waiver designed to release them from the dictates of the ACA.

What would that accomplish?

Not much.

The waiver provision in the ACA has been often discussed, derided and, ultimately, either completely misunderstood or used by Obama opponents to once again twist the truth.

To qualify for a waiver from the requirements of the ACA, a state, employer or employee must show that compliance with the federal requirement would cause “a significant increase in premiums or a decrease in access to benefits.”

Further, the waivers are only good for the period of time that HHS permits, not to exceed the date of full implementation of the law in 2014.

We all recall the huh-bub that arose when waivers were granted to some large employers- like McDonald’s- and a few unions. The Right went crazy, alleging that once Obama had passed his law, he proceeded to shield his friends from the provisions of the same.

This was simply never the case.

The waiver provisions were put into place in anticipation that it would take some employers longer to adjust their benefit programs to the new law. In the case of a company like McDonalds, which employs thousands of part-timers, immediate adjustment to certain provisions in the law would have been devastating. They simply needed more time to make changes in their plan in order to comply.

This does not mean that all companies required this extra time. Nor did it mean that only companies and states friendly to Obama suddenly required the waivers. In fact, the overwhelming majority of employers did not require any assistance and have moved forward with the changes currently required with minimal, if any, discomfort.

The same goes for a couple of states whose laws were at variance with the federal statute.

Take, for example, Florida – a state whose governor is about as hostile to the Obama agenda as one can imagine yet was still granted a waiver. And then there is Tennessee who achieved a waiver despite handing its 2008 electoral votes to John McCain.

Under Florida’s law, a health insurance company is only required to spend 65%-70% of premium income on actual health care. The ACA requires 80%-85% be spent on actual health care benefits and further states that the new formula take effect in 2011. Insurers failing to meet the requirement would be subject to huge penalties in the way of rebates to their customers.

Were Florida to have to implement this provision in 2011, there was a genuine concern that health insurance companies in the state would flee as they would be unable to make such a radical change in so short a time, leaving them exposed to huge penalties via the rebates.

To allow this would have placed millions of Floridians in danger of becoming uninsured should the insurance companies bail out.

Obviously, this was not the intent of the new law. Equally obvious, this was precisely the type of situation the ACA envisioned when creating the opportunity for temporary waivers.

And if you think this is an example of why it is just awful that the federal government is messing in health care insurance requirements rather than leave it to the states, might I respectfully suggest that the logic requires that you rethink this one.

Health insurance companies who only spend 65% of the premium money they collect on actual health care for their beneficiaries do so to benefit their own bank accounts. Because they use this low amount of receipts to pay for actual care, as health care costs go up, they have to charge you more because they are only spending 65 cents of every dollar you send them to pay for actual care. The rest of your money goes into their pocket to pay for inflated overhead -including the people they employ to try to deny you the coverage you paid for- and, of course, profit.

There is absolutely no argument one can make that this is, somehow, good for consumers.

Similarly, you cannot argue that requiring a private health insurance company to spend 85% of their premium revenues on health care instead of spending it on overhead (typically running around 14% for private insurers compared to Medicare which runs at about 3%) is a bad thing for consumers.

Thus, by 2014, every insurance company is going to have to meet this new requirement. A private insurer will not be able to flee Florida looking for greener pastures as it isn’t going to be any easier for them in any other state.

Until then, it was never Obama’s nor the Congress’ intent to upset the applecart so badly that people lost coverage instead of gain it.

So, exactly what is Romney going to accomplish with his promise to give everyone a waiver where he to take office in January of 2013?

While he can waive the requirements of the ACA for every state in the nation, he would accomplish very little indeed, do nothing to end the law and, one year later, those waivers would expire.

As for Perry, I’d love to hear what he believes he is going to accomplish via his first day, executive order as the details have been conspicuously absent.

I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time for that answer.

[DemonGeminiX]

:-s

He may want to take a crash course in Political Science while he's on the campaign trail.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:-s

He may want to take a crash course in Political Science while he's on the campaign trail.

Why? It's kinda fun to see who, between him and Bachman now, will say the most stupid things :)

Bachman is still way out front tho, so Perry has some ground to make up...although this is a good one :thumbsup:

[Loser]

What bothers me more is that "Rick Ungar | Forbes" is such a fucking idiot, he didn't see this as a political move by perry to get more votes and people behind him. The average person has absolutely no idea what powers the presidency holds, and Perry is using this stupidity, much like Ojackass did, to gain voters.

Plain and simple.

I don't think were far enough along yet to where our possible contenders for president are that dumb. Give it at least another decade, then we'll see some dumb motherfuckers running for president. :lol:



In 30 years' time, the future president of the United States will have been raised on lolcats, goatse, failblog, 4chan, and various things over 9000.

:twisted:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Would it be better if nobody pointed out that his statement was moronic?

[AntZ]

Why? It's kinda fun to see who, between him and Bachman now, will say the most stupid things :)


All candidates say stupid things, this has more to do with the glee certain elements in the media have when they can make headlines with it!

It always goes back to the same old formula, Republicans are either dark and evil or drooling idiots! Dem. candidates are always the same, people loving geniuses that only care about feeding the hungry and healing the sick.

Biden and Obama made stupid comments by the minute during the election in 08', and only conservative blogs would get it out there. The same national news sources that will stop the presses to highlight how stupid the Rep. candidates are now, always seemed to miss the "misstatements" from the ones they rooted for.


And this writer Rick Ungar happens to be a hard core cheerleader for George Soros causes, so no wonder this piece along with the "deer in the headlights" photo would lead any unsuspecting reader to question Perry's qualifications!

[Loser]

Would it be better if nobody pointed out that his statement was moronic?

While it was asinine, it served his purpose, and the more articles reporters post, the more they spread his agenda.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

.....would lead any unsuspecting reader to question Perry's qualifications!

No, Perry being an idiot (IMO) causes me to question his qualifications.

A lie is a lie, whether you have an (R) by your name or a (D)...and if it's not a lie to just try and drum up supporters and that statement comes out of ignorance instead, that's even worse.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

While it was asinine, it served his purpose, and the more articles reporters post, the more they spread his agenda.

How is debunking is non-factual claims 'spreading his agenda'? :confused:

[Loser]

How is debunking is non-factual claims 'spreading his agenda'? :confused:


Rick Perry Clueless On Use Of Executive Presidential Powers To Kill Obamacare

Even though it's pointing out his stupidity on how to do so, it still points out that he wants to kill obamacare, and people will vote for him based on that fact alone.

Sad isn't it. :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

:thumbsup:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Even though it's pointing out his stupidity on how to do so, it still points out that he wants to kill obamacare, and people will vote for him based on that fact alone.

Sad isn't it. :lol:

Ah, I get what you're saying now :thumbsup:

But every republican presidential candidate has pledged to go after Obamacare, so it's not like it's some hidden agenda ;)

[Loser]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

:thumbsup:

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.....en masse....:facepalm:

http://i53.tinypic.com/jztiev.jpg

[MrsM]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.

:thumbsup:

+1 - unfortunately you don't even need to be informed to vote

[Loser]

Ah, I get what you're saying now :thumbsup:

But every republican presidential candidate has pledged to go after Obamacare, so it's not like it's some hidden agenda ;)

I know, but that's how politics works. Say it loud, often, and to mass crowds of people.

As much as I hate to say or admit it, people are sheep.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Never underestimate the power of stupid people.....en masse....:facepalm:

http://i53.tinypic.com/jztiev.jpg

:pwnd:

[FBD]

:lol: Ungar's article sounds like deep wrote the friggin thing

yup, there's absolutely ZERO the pres will be able to do about obamacare! :lol:

[Acid Trip]

1) He'd replace the HHS with someone of his choosing
2) The HHS would then make the waivers based on the president suggestions

A pointless article.

[Deepsepia]

Rick Perry is a bit scary. He's ignorant in some ways, but very charismatic, a good politician, and appealing. The contrast with, say, a Tim Pawlenty -- dull but sober -- is instructive.

The battle that Perry is fighting here is a very old one -- how much power does the President have not to enforce a signed law? Answer: not much.

This one goes back to (at least) Nixon . . . there used to be a power to impound funds appropriated by Congress, that the President didn't want to spend, but Nixon was thought to have abused that power, and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed to deal with this issue.

The ACA story is, at this point, a legal and political nightmare on all sides. The Right, having whipped up ignorant hostility to this law, will find that attempts to repeal it provoke voter reaction. The thing is, voters have a vague sense of being "against Obamacare" -- but on the other hand, they're very much in favor of the specific provisions of the law (like a prohibition against discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions).

With a vast number of Americans on the edge of poverty (look at the food stamp numbers-- 46 million people, %15 of the population), there is a very large group of folks who clearly can't afford healthcare . . . ACA aims to get them into private doctors' offices; without ACA, they end up in emergency rooms. . . hard to see why anyone thinks that's better.

[FBD]

Ignorant hostility? :rofl: The hostility is amongst those whore are not ignorant of the downstream effects. Meanwhile, those who know least, largely support it - based on questions like..."do you think it is ok to be discriminated against and have your rights violated simply because you have a preexisting condition?"

and bythe claim about the doctors, you'd think they'd be in love with the plan - all these patients in doctors offices! what a revenue generator!

why, they HATE it...

talk about preconceived notions...you suffer acutely in a few areas, deep, and this is one of them. (Obamacare, in case context was forgotten.)

[Deepsepia]

Ignorant hostility? :rofl: The hostility is amongst those whore are not ignorant of the downstream effects. Meanwhile, those who know least, largely support it - based on questions like..."do you think it is ok to be discriminated against and have your rights violated simply because you have a preexisting condition?")

Once again, knowing something would help you avoid error.

Every other advanced industrial nation provides national health insurance or a national health service to all its citizens.

Every one of them

Every one of them achieves health care outcomes as good or better than ours.

Every one of them spends less money than we do, both as a percentage of GDP and in dollars.

The "we fight for the right of people not to be able to pay for healthcare" is an extraordinarily ignorant position: it requires that its adherents know nothing about the issue to believe it.

[FBD]

:lol: change up the context when in a corner, eh?

part of the problem is the globalist mentality...and a mentality that doesnt see america as any different than any other country. you cant even complete the equation and resort to "social democracy" solutions that are not of the core of the land of the free.

what you neglect is, these things must be paid for, and by using the grandiose one size fits all method you rack up huge costs.

ffs, you'd think it would be all over the news that its plain as day that Obamacare does absolutely none of the core things it promised, simply changes a large transfer of wealth system shifted around a little differently and a whole shitload more shifted elsewhere - not to mention, costs a boatload more than any reasonable estimates they came up with, most of which were bunk...

simply put, we dont want to pay for the vast sums of money our neighbors rack up.

Obamacare would NEVER even have come close to passing if they were even remotely honest with us about it. Even with those majorities.

as rosy as you'd like things to believe, there's this tiny little problem with Utopia - and that's called stark fcking reality.

you've stated yourself how many times the 3rd party model is and how its application is all wrong - but you need to move to europe if you want to participate in some big fancy ass ponzi scheme transfer of wealth mismanaged at very high levels for healthcare.

tout all those "paid for" models all you want, but when you want service, you know, I know, the american people know...and all the rest of the world that can afford it knows - you know where to go when you want top notch, available service.

in a free market, that thrives. big top down planning, kills it. you just arent honest enough to accept that plain fact.

[Acid Trip]

Every one of them spends less money than we do, both as a percentage of GDP and in dollars.



The United States has the most advanced, and most expensive, health care facilities/treatments in the world.

Sure, everyone gets equal treatment under socialized medicine but they do NOT get the best treatment available. If people want cutting edge treatment by the best doctors in the world they come here. That's a fact you cannot deny.

[Deepsepia]

The United States has the most advanced, and most expensive, health care facilities/treatments in the world.

Sure, everyone gets equal treatment under socialized medicine but they do NOT get the best treatment available. If people want cutting edge treatment by the best doctors in the world they come here. That's a fact you cannot deny.

Not true.

If you look at very basic things, like pregnant women who've seen a doctor in their first trimester, we lag most other advanced nations.

Our life expectancy -- even for healthy white folks-- lags other nations.

It certainly is true that at the very top of our system -- at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, or the Mayo Clinic, there are extraordinary medical advances. But the bottom line of medicine is that rare cases are rare.

Good healthcare in society isn't "invent an artificial pancreas for diabetes" -- it's "keep folks fit and healthy so theydontget diabetes"

The US is the country that spends billions treating problems that other nations avoid by spending thousands.

The end result is that despite spending much more money than anyone else, we're much less healthy.

[Acid Trip]

Not true.

What isn't true about what I said? Quote it.

We have the best and most expensive health care/facilities and we have more advanced treatments available than any other country in the world. Socialized medicine is good at the little things (a first trimester doctor visit like in your example) but it cannot support multimillion dollar treatments for everyone. Drawing the line between what socialized medicine will cover and what it can't is one of it's main problems.

My insurance may not cover everything but I always have the option to change insurance, pay cash/payment plans for procedures, or go without. Those are my choices. If my tax dollars go towards a socialized medicine program and they say no to a treatment what do I do? I've paid for something through taxes (which you have no choice to pay) that doesn't take care of me.

The "but every other country has it" shit has got to stop too. It sounds like a whiny kid complaining because he doesn't have a toy his friends do have. We ARE NOT like every other country in the world. I would think people would have realized that by now.

[Deepsepia]

What isn't true about what I said? Quote it.

We have the best and most expensive health care/facilities and we have more advanced treatments available than any other country in the world.


Not true. We have lots of advanced treatments, but you'll find advanced treatment and equipment in other nations of the developed world, it is incorrect to say that we have "more advanced treatments available than any other country in the world". Depending on just what you illness or condition was, you might get treatment unavailable in the US in countries like Switzerland and Germany, folks with enough money to do so will often seek treatment overseas.

With drugs, in particular, you'll find lots of stuff that's available overseas long before its available in the US. Sometimes that's a good thing (Thalidomide), sometimes its not. AIDS patients, particularly in the early years, were importing a lot of drugs not available in the US.

If you look at advanced surgical tools and medical diagnostics, there are major US manufacturers (GE, Stryker, Medtronic) and major foreign manufacturers (Siemens, Fujitsu, Olympus). If you look at procedures like endoscopy (revolutionized surgery) the tools are Japanese and European, invented in Europe, and available first in Europe. At this point, the only part of medicine where I'd say we're clearly dramatically ahead of the word is biotech. If you look at "big Pharma", 6 of the top 10 firms are European, 4 are US.



Socialized medicine is good at the little things (a first trimester doctor visit like in your example) but it cannot support multimillion dollar treatments for everyone.


neither can our system. Our system delivers solutions that cost many millions of dollars, but we can't afford it.

Systems with national health insurance (not the same thing as socialized medicine), do that "little thing" of making sure expectant moms see a doc, and their kids get vaccinated -- costs a few hundred dollars. We, on the other hand, do a crummy job at those things . .. and when our kids are born premature, they go into a neo natal intensive care unit -- at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day.

So our kids get more "advanced care" -- and die more. So do you think that expensive "advanced care" is better than the cheap prevention that we didn't do?




The "but every other country has it" shit has got to stop too. It sounds like a whiny kid complaining because he doesn't have a toy his friends do have. We ARE NOT like every other country in the world. I would think people would have realized that by now.

Gosh, is diabetes a different disease than diabetes is in Canada? Is a pregnant mom in France miraculously different than a pregnant mom in the US? Is a stroke in Switzerland different than one in the US?

Weird, because the drugs they develop work on us.

And we compete with these countries. If we're spending %20 of our GDP on healthcare, and everyone else is spending %12 . . . how competitive do you think we'll be, long term? That %8 excess (US over next highest OECD spend) is equal to about $850 billion a year that we're spending on healthcare that we wouldn't be spending -- if we spent at the levels of our peers. That's a lot of money.

Your frustration is your own problem. You apparently are frustrated when encountering data that disagrees with your ideology, but the data are what they are, and your political preferences don't change them.

The data are unforgiving: we spend way more money than anyone else to achieve at best a mediocre healthcare outcome, we can't afford what we spend today, and we certainly can't afford the costs that are coming as the baby boom ages. There is no right/left disagreement on this point: we can't afford what we're doing. The notion of national health insurance with a mandate is something that Republicans (like Richard Nixon, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman) have all advocated . . . that's not because they're in love with socialism.

So you may have an ideological attachment to something about this system, but it has to change to something that works better, cheaper-- the numbers don't care about ideology.

Me, I'm a numbers guy: you show me healthcare finance numbers which work, and I'll consider implementing that system. You, you seem to be an "ideology guy" -- you've decided what you think you want, and that makes you frustrated when the numbers don't work. My advice: when the numbers and your politics disagree, the numbers are usually right.

[FBD]

deep, you must be double jointed to be able to do such contortions as you do!

do you forget that even in a country where medicine is socialized, IT STILL GETS PAID FOR, BY SOMEONE? (Or do you realize such a thing, and are merely supporting further wealth transfer?)

Please tell me again why I am responsible for my neighbor's diabetes?

You entirely leave out significant factors - or, they may simply be 'little' in your narrow view - what is the difference between a strong retail healthcare market and one where virtually NOBODY is a front end payer?

Are we to be subsidizing catastrophic care only, or soup to nuts any and every ailment known to man? The third party payer system has proved disastrous for either, as will a government monopoly.

(Are you still denying Obamacare was crafted to destroy private insurance and create a crisis of such proportion that "the only solution" is to have the government sweep it all up?)


For a "numbers based" guy, you're pretty ideologically sold on the one size fits all solution...that basically fits none and costs an arm and a leg above and beyond. Doesnt quite add up :-k

[Acid Trip]

Me, I'm a numbers guy: you show me healthcare finance numbers which work, and I'll consider implementing that system. You, you seem to be an "ideology guy" -- you've decided what you think you want, and that makes you frustrated when the numbers don't work. My advice: when the numbers and your politics disagree, the numbers are usually right.

Sorry but I view people as people and not numbers. That's probably why I'm the youngest SVP ever at my bank.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Deepsepia]

Sorry but I view people as people and not numbers. That's probably why I'm the youngest SVP ever at my bank.


Does your bank not require numeracy? Can I get a loan without a W2, a FICO score, or collateral-- maybe just a good word from my friends?



Let's just agree to disagree.

We're in agreement. You have no data to support your position. We both agree on that.

Numbers are the only way to evaluate health care. When you look at, say, a new drug application, a biotech IPO, an insurance cover-- they're not novels: they're numbers.

Numbers of people who fall ill, what they fall ill with, how they're treated, how they do, how much it costs.

Our system costs us roughly $2.5 Trillion a year, and health care cost inflation has steadily been twice the CPI, and twice our GDP growth rates.

It doesn't take much in the way of mathematics to see that this can't continue. Maybe you have some "no numbers" way of addressing a $2.5 Trillion market-- no one else does.

[FBD]

:roll: no deep, the data we have to support our position is summarily dismissed by you. there's a slight difference there. that's like Obama saying "the republicans havent put forth a plan" with respect to the budget issue when they clearly have, and a few of them, to boot.


typical of liberals, you simply ignore things you find inconveniently opposed to what's in between your blinders.


tell me, which is cheaper: a system by which nobody pays for anything directly, they pay a lump sum into a central repository - or, a system where people pay for theirs, where there is enough competition to shop around, since there is a real marketplace established?

in which system are businesses driven to keep their prices low?

in which system are businesses driven to notch up the price at every little turn?

in which system are end users placed in close context to their expenses and see what's what, giving them a baseline by which to go in terms of pricing?

in which system are end users herded towards not even caring at all, since they're only paying a general sum anyway?

in which system is there greater potential for corruption?

in which system is there greater intrinsic value placed on transparency and getting what you pay for?



These things may be trivial in your worldview, but in this thing we got here called reality, they are quite weighted. Quite.



I rest my case. You look at staggering costs and suggest running towards the wrong end zone. Your solution is to further obfuscate and obscure costs, reduce accountability, efficiency, competition...

...its just so swiss cheese full of holes I cant believe you have the level of intelligence that you do and also hold those same views. It simply does not add up. I think that's where we got that liberalism just rots people's minds, you speak of numbers and relying on cold hard ones, but then you're so selective in your coefficients that you do a disservice to reality in supporting Obamacare-like solutions.

No offense man, I just get repeatedly baffled by this. Your only retort is that "all the other kids have one!" and its just not realistic in the least. Our very "real" arguments are simply ignored by you. Its disappointing. It kinda tells me that you know you're wrong, but cant ideologically bring yourself to support something "right wing."

[Deepsepia]

:roll: no deep, the data we have to support our position is summarily dismissed by you.

No, you actually have no data at all, in fact, you don't seem to even understand what data is. What part of what you just posted is "healthcare data"?

You don't appear to know how much money any nation spends on health care. You don't know life expectancies at birth, or any other data.

I've posted many links to authoritative national healthcare data, but am happy to again.

So let's start with the very basics:

How much money does the United States spend on healthcare, in raw dollars and as a % of GDP?

Answers are here:
http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT

[FBD]

yup, nevermind all that stuff you leave out. never mind the data I have posted, that most certainly doesnt count since I dont trot it out at every turn. like acid said, its people. the world contains a whole crapload of them. and you dont understand their nature in the least, my friend. otherwise you'd purchase a subscription to reality and understand that human behavior (c'mon, I thought all liberals were well versed in human behavior?) has to be considered in an equation of Billions of people, Trillions of dollars.

perhaps you consider it - but only think of changing it by the force of law instead of understanding nature and ascribing a prescription that will actually work. numbers are a large consideration, yes - but you're completely ignoring the entire driving force behind not only healthcare but this country - it shows in the ideologies you support.

the only way you "score a point" here is to ignore the other side's argument, claim its null and void, and absolve yourself from defending an untenable position. slick, but no cigar.

[FBD]

:lol: *waits for deep to post entire gross of what we spend vs other countries, claim their result is better since they pay less*

[FBD]

What part of what you just posted is "healthcare data"?

gimme a f'n break! :roll: obviously, there was a high level observation that went entirely over your head, and then you claim since there was no data in there, I have no real position.


getting kinda old, dude. I've taken the time to post data before and school your ass on shit like this - and surprise, you ignore it - no wonder you dont ever remember me posting data! :lol:


I dont ever recall you making sense on this issue. doesnt mean there aint a tidbit here and there where you do :razz:

that doesnt mean I am going to sit here and claim that you have no argument - it just means I'm going to shoot your faulty assessments down with logic, and when you try to do the wiggle jiggle and ignore it when you get smacked on an issue, I'm going to call you on it.

what again of the points I've made?

oh, that's right. they dont exist :-s

[Acid Trip]

gimme a f'n break! :roll: obviously, there was a high level observation that went entirely over your head, and then you claim since there was no data in there, I have no real position.


getting kinda old, dude. I've taken the time to post data before and school your ass on shit like this - and surprise, you ignore it - no wonder you dont ever remember me posting data! :lol:


I dont ever recall you making sense on this issue. doesnt mean there aint a tidbit here and there where you do :razz:

that doesnt mean I am going to sit here and claim that you have no argument - it just means I'm going to shoot your faulty assessments down with logic, and when you try to do the wiggle jiggle and ignore it when you get smacked on an issue, I'm going to call you on it.

what again of the points I've made?

oh, that's right. they dont exist :-s

Deep believes that one size fits all. If he doesn't see how insanely childish that stance is then that's his problem. He should move to Europe so all his socialist dreams can come true.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm beginning to get tired of this, gentlemen.

[Acid Trip]

Does your bank not require numeracy? Can I get a loan without a W2, a FICO score, or collateral-- maybe just a good word from my friends?



First, you have already proven you don't have a clue how banks work. Denying someone a loan due to horrific credit, outstanding loan balances, or lack of collateral IS NOT the same as denying someone medical treatment because "the numbers don't support it." One is just money and the other is a human life.

We heard "maybe grandma should just take a pain pill" directly from the horse's mouth (Obama). So because a person is too old, or the treatment too expensive, we should just write them off. You have an amazingly poor view of life and humanity. I get it though, you're a soulless numbers guy.