Paul Krugman Proves Sarah Palin Was Right

[red states rule]

During the roundtable on ABC's This Week, Paul Krugman said this




If they were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.


If it's not even -- if the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all. It's not educating the public. It's not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made.




Will he see the mouth frothing hysteria from the left when Sarah Palin made the same observation about what must happen under Obamacare to keep the costs low?

I doubt it

[Palin Rider]

Ever heard the phrase "quoting out of context?"

I doubt it.

Not one word from Krugman or anybody else on that discussion panel about Palin or about euthanizing Grandpa.

Watch it again.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-tax-cut-debate-12144694

[fj1200]

Not one word from Krugman or anybody else on that discussion panel about Palin or about euthanizing Grandpa.

Don't like to read what's really there do you?

[gabosaurus]

I doubt Sarah Palin is paying much attention. She is having too much fun with her weekly Infomercial currently running on TV.

[Palin Rider]

I doubt Sarah Palin is paying much attention. She is having too much fun with her weekly Infomercial currently running on TV.

Even George Will (on another segment of this same show) calls her "damaging to the GOP brand."

[Missileman]

Ever heard the phrase "quoting out of context?"

I doubt it.

Not one word from Krugman or anybody else on that discussion panel about Palin or about euthanizing Grandpa.

Watch it again.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-tax-cut-debate-12144694

Palin wasn't talking about euthanasia, but about withholding treatment based on cost/benefit analysis. I think it's hilarious that you idiots are in such a hurry to take those decisions away from the insurance companies and give them over to DC beaurocrats in the delusion that you'll be better off.

[red states rule]

Ever heard the phrase "quoting out of context?"

I doubt it.

Not one word from Krugman or anybody else on that discussion panel about Palin or about euthanizing Grandpa.

Watch it again.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-tax-cut-debate-12144694

It is all about rationing care and containing costs. Ms Palin said the same thing Krugman said. The government will decide who gets care and who does not. Who lives and who dies

All for the benfit for the common good and the collective

[red states rule]

I doubt Sarah Palin is paying much attention. She is having too much fun with her weekly Infomercial currently running on TV.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn112010cd20101118034531.jpg

[Palin Rider]

It is all about rationing care and containing costs. Ms Palin said the same thing Krugman said. The government will decide who gets care and who does not. Who lives and who dies

Only if they're poor. That's what America's all about, kid.

[red states rule]

Only if they're poor. That's what America's all about, kid.

But Obamacare was "sold" to the voters as fixing that "problem"

Now we are told it will not and the government must decide who gets treated and who does not

Of course we were told the cost of helathcare would go down and Obamcare would not add once cent to the deficit

[Palin Rider]

Of course we were told the cost of helathcare would go down and Obamcare would not add once cent to the deficit

And even your heroes coming into the House in January admit that repealing the legislation will cost more than keeping it.

[Missileman]

And even your heroes coming into the House in January admit that repealing the legislation will cost more than keeping it.

Really? How about a link to back up that bullshit?

[Palin Rider]

Really? How about a link to back up that bullshit?

If you're already so sure it's bullshit, why do you even want a link? :poke:

[red states rule]

If you're already so sure it's bullshit, why do you even want a link? :poke:

Translation: PR busted again and is doing the liberal 2 step dance once again

Obamacare costs well over $1 trillion and it would save that same amount by repealing it

Something more then 50% of the voters want to happen

[Missileman]

If you're already so sure it's bullshit, why do you even want a link? :poke:

I'm sure it's bullshit alright. I asked for a link to highlight your propensity to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact.

[red states rule]

I'm sure it's bullshit alright. I asked for a link to highlight your propensity to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact.

He does it almost as good as Obama

[Palin Rider]

I'm sure it's bullshit alright. I asked for a link to highlight your propensity to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact.

You know damned well I didn't "make up" the savings argument.

"[The] CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years."

CSMonitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform)

[red states rule]

You know damned well I didn't "make up" the savings argument.

"[The] CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years."

CSMonitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform)

You know how the came up with that number?

The tax increases start January 1, 2011 - but the "benefits" of Obamcare saart in 2013

After that date, Obamacare is a budget buster

[Missileman]

You know damned well I didn't "make up" the savings argument.

"[The] CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years."

CSMonitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform)

The CBO's predictions are only as good as the data they are told to use to perform their calculations. They(Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) conveniently left the 230 billion a year doc fix out of the bill that makes the "illusion" of deficit reduction disappear.

[Missileman]

You know damned well I didn't "make up" the savings argument.

"[The] CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years."

CSMonitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform)

So where's the link to back up the claim about repeal?

[Palin Rider]

The CBO's predictions are only as good as the data they are told to use to perform their calculations. They conveniently left the 230 billion a year doc fix out of the bill that makes the "illusion" of deficit reduction disappear.

You've already been caught in a lie. I'm not going to play nursemaid to your ego by countering the above bullshit.

[red states rule]

The CBO's predictions are only as good as the data they are told to use to perform their calculations. They conveniently left the 230 billion a year doc fix out of the bill that makes the "illusion" of deficit reduction disappear.

What "doc fix"?

Dems are going to repeal that measure so that wil add to the already huge deficit Obamacare will add

In fact, shortly before Obamacare was passed, Dems sent out a memo telling Doctors they had no intention of pasing the "doc fix"

[Missileman]

You've already been caught in a lie. I'm not going to play nursemaid to your ego by countering the above bullshit.

What lie did I tell?

[red states rule]

and the people still do not want Obamacare




Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, and they remain almost evenly divided over whether the law will force them to change their own health insurance coverage.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% favor repeal of the health care law passed by Congress in March, with 47% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, including 29% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

These figures are little changed from last week and support for repeal has remained constant for months. In weekly tracking since the bill became law, voter support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[Missileman]

You know damned well I didn't "make up" the savings argument.

"[The] CBO says this bill will actually cut the deficit over 10 years."

CSMonitor article (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform)

By the way, I never said you made up the savings argument.

[Palin Rider]

By the way, I never said you made up the savings argument.

You "never said it" the way Clinton "never had sexual relations with that woman."

[Missileman]

You "never said it" the way Clinton "never had sexual relations with that woman."

Quote it asshole or STFU.

[red states rule]

You know how the came up with that number?

The tax increases start January 1, 2011 - but the "benefits" of Obamcare saart in 2013

After that date, Obamacare is a budget buster

PR, cat got your tongue? Cough up that furr ball and tell me where I am wrong on the liberal financing of Obamacare

[Palin Rider]

PR, cat got your tongue? Cough up that furr ball and tell me where I am wrong on the liberal financing of Obamacare

Back up your tax increase and benefits statements first, then we'll talk.

[Palin Rider]

Quote it asshole or STFU.

Here you go, asshole.


I asked for a link to highlight your propensity to make shit up and try to pass it off as fact.

The only way for you to continue in this dialog is to man up, admit you lied, and move on. I am not going to get into long debates with proven liars who refuse to admit it.

[Missileman]

Here you go, asshole.



The only way for you to continue in this dialog is to man up, admit you lied, and move on. I am not going to get into long debates with proven liars who refuse to admit it.

You show me where I referenced your post about savings and you win. Since it doesn't exist, you lose. You made an assumption about what I was talking about when I said you make shit up, and your assumption was incorrect.

I notice you've decided to use this false assumption of yours to avoid posting any evidence to back up the claim I called "bullshit" in the first place. I expected no less.

[Palin Rider]

You show me where I referenced your post about savings and you win. Since it doesn't exist, you lose. You made an assumption about what I was talking about when I said you make shit up, and your assumption was incorrect.

I notice you've decided to use this false assumption of yours to avoid posting any evidence to back up the claim I called "bullshit" in the first place. I expected no less.

Then you should expect to go on ignore. It's pointless to deal with a proven liar in any other way.

[Missileman]

Then you should expect to go on ignore. It's pointless to deal with a proven liar in any other way.

You haven't proven anything but your unwillingness to post support for your bullshit claims. If everyone else on the board asks you to post a link I guess you'll have to put them on ignore also. To make it perfectly clear, I was asking for evidence that your claim in post #11 was anything more than something you fabricated.

[Kathianne]

You haven't proven anything but your unwillingness to post support for your bullshit claims. If everyone else on the board asks you to post a link I guess you'll have to put them on ignore also. To make it perfectly clear, I was asking for evidence that your claim in post #11 was anything more than something you fabricated.

It's a recurring process with PR. He's done it numerous times. Somehow he thinks it goes unnoticed and other readers will assume he's been stoic or something in the face of other unreasonable posters. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

It's a recurring process with PR. He's done it numerous times. Somehow he thinks it goes unnoticed and other readers will assume he's been stoic or something in the face of other unreasonable posters. :laugh2:

I was actually hoping that 3 or 4 other posters would ask him for proof of what he stated in post #11.

[Kathianne]

I was actually hoping that 3 or 4 other posters would ask him for proof of what he stated in post #11.

there's just no point. I've given him less than flattering rep before for such, but it's not worth doing the same thing over and over. Personally I wouldn't get involved with debating him, they end the same over and over again.

[Palin Rider]

there's just no point. I've given him less than flattering rep before for such, but it's not worth doing the same thing over and over. Personally I wouldn't get involved with debating him, they end the same over and over again.

You're exaggerating, Kath. You gave me "less than flattering rep" exactly once, and it was for something totally unrelated.

As for Missileboy's obsession with post #11: I gave him his link from the CBO. He just doesn't like that things aren't going his way, so he starts spewing lies. Unless he wants to tell me that the new GOP leadership is refuting the CBO (and backs that up), it's game over.

[Kathianne]

You're exaggerating, Kath. You gave me "less than flattering rep" exactly once, and it was for something totally unrelated.

As for Missileboy's obsession with post #11: I gave him his link from the CBO. He just doesn't like that things aren't going his way, so he starts spewing lies. Unless he wants to tell me that the new GOP leadership is refuting the CBO (and backs that up), it's game over.

Actually it was the same type of behavior. I rarely neg rep, period. It needs to be earned and you did that. I don't believe that there's reason to keep negging the same behavior, if the poster doesn't change that behavior then, they choose not to. That's fine with me, I just take them for what they're worth.

No, he didn't lie. You were purposefully misleading, then did nothing to clear it up but call names. Immature way of ending the debate.

[Palin Rider]

No, he didn't lie. You were purposefully misleading, then did nothing to clear it up but call names.

Was I misleading for reaching a conclusion you don't agree with, or was there some other reason? :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Was I misleading for reaching a conclusion you don't agree with, or was there some other reason? :laugh2:

Nope, per usual you were looking for an excuse to run away, then act as if you'd 'won.' I really am not interested in the discussion, I wasn't in it. Just watching how you led it to devolve. Like I said, it's a process you employ. Have at it, but my guess is that you'll be talking to yourself before long.

[fj1200]

I was actually hoping that 3 or 4 other posters would ask him for proof of what he stated in post #11.

I would have but he's already ignoring me. :laugh:

[Palin Rider]

Nope, per usual you were looking for an excuse to run away, then act as if you'd 'won.' I really am not interested in the discussion, I wasn't in it. Just watching how you led it to devolve. Like I said, it's a process you employ. Have at it, but my guess is that you'll be talking to yourself before long.

Interesting logic: if I end up talking to myself, why would I need an excuse to run away?

No worries; I actually enjoy your posts. They amuse me.

[red states rule]

Back up your tax increase and benefits statements first, then we'll talk.

You mean there is something you do not know hotshot?




The "President's Proposal" for a health care overhaul, released today, includes some hefty tax increases. Here are links to a few from the White House Web site. An increased Medicare payroll tax: "The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations)." It's hard to see how President Obama, a bestselling author himself, considers royalties to be unearned income, unless you buy American Thinker's theory that Bill Ayers did a lot of the work on Dreams From My Father. And it'll be interesting to see whether this tax on "unearned income" includes interest on Treasury bills and on municipal bonds. The current 15% tax rate on dividends is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, and it'll be interesting to see if the Obama 2.9% tax is added to the top of another increase. Won't this tax increase be reflected in a decline in the value of rent-paying and dividend-paying assets, i.e., commercial real estate and the stock market? There's a tax on policies with premiums above $27,500 a year for families, a tax the law imposes "beginning in 2018," by which time Mr. Obama will, conveniently, be out of office and therefore not liable for any political fallout from the tax. If this tax is such a swell idea, why wait eight years to impose it? And why do the $250,000-a-year couples with dividend income get socked with their tax increase immediately, while the union guys with Cadillac health plans get a tax holiday until 2018? There are taxes on prescription drugs, medical devices, health insurance companies, and indoor tanning services. The White House characterizes the taxes on the drug companies and the health insurers as "fees."

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/02/obama-goes-for-tax-increases





and





Promises of symbolic insurance regulations are like thin gruel to serve a public hungry for substantial change. And Democrats will not have more to offer in 2010 - or for years after.

The reason? The White House and Congressional leadership considered it a priority to fare well with the Congressional Budget Office cost estimates over ten years, showing Americans that while their ambitions were great, they were being fiscally responsible. But ObamaCare is expensive, with lavish subsidies and expansions of Medicaid.

Democrats came up with a simple fix, and one that superficially worked. ObamaCare will reduce the deficit modestly over a decade, according to CBO scoring. To achieve these handsome numbers, Democrats made a grand bargain: their plan calls for taxes and cuts almost immediately, but new programs are phased in over time, with most Americans not even having the option of participating in ObamaCare until 2013 or later.

At the risk of stating the politically obvious: 2013 is years in the future.

You might want to avoid higher premiums by signing up for, say, the co-op insurance plan that Senators proposed - but it won't be sold most likely until January 2014. Many Americans probably won't be eligible to use it until later. If you're a cash-strapped parent hoping for insurance subsidies, keep hoping: While seniors see billions in cuts to Medicare Advantage up front, subsidies for ordinary Americans don't start until 2013 (House version) or 2014 (Senate). And the health-insurance exchanges that will finally offer you some much needed choice of affordable plans? You guessed it - nothing until at least 2013.

2013 is far into the future; two congressional elections, one presidential election and three giant federal budget deficits away, to be precise. If you believe the Mayan prophecies, the world will already have ended by 2012, long before any Americans see the supposed benefits of these "historic" reforms.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/12/yes_republicans_talk_about_health_care_99822.html





OK PR start dismissing the facts that blew your ass out of the water

[red states rule]

Looks like PR has taken a page from BP's debate book and has taken a powder when the facts get to be tio much for him

[Palin Rider]

You mean there is something you do not know hotshot?

OK PR start dismissing the facts that blew your ass out of the water

Let me get this straight. You're in a frenzy about a two-year window in which the richest Americans pay a 3.18% surcharge on their tax bill?

ROFL!

What possible reason could you have for this, when you obviously don't make anywhere close to $200k annually?

[red states rule]

Let me get this straight. You're in a frenzy about a two-year window in which the richest Americans pay a 3.18% surcharge on their tax bill?

ROFL!

What possible reason could you have for this, when you obviously don't make anywhere close to $200k annually?

Hey hotshot, you said to prove Obamacare was not a budget buster. Dems have it set up where the government collects three years of taxes before Obamacare kicks in

It is not only the "rich" but people from every income group who will pay more taxes and for what???

Less and more costly coverage

Obamacre is like other government run healthcare plans. it is a redistruibution of wealth

[Palin Rider]

Hey hotshot, you said to prove Obamacare was not a budget buster. Dems have it set up where the government collects three years of taxes before Obamacare kicks in

It is not only the "rich" but people from every income group who will pay more taxes and for what???

Less and more costly coverage

Obamacre is like other government run healthcare plans. it is a redistruibution of wealth

You have nothing with which to back up those claims.

[Missileman]

You have nothing with which to back up those claims.

Says the guy who can't back up his own...a perfect 10 on the ironic scale.

[red states rule]

You have nothing with which to back up those claims.

And you are showing what a total ass you are

From my previous post




There are taxes on prescription drugs, medical devices, health insurance companies, and indoor tanning services. The White House characterizes the taxes on the drug companies and the health insurers as "fees."




I also posted this morning how a UNION is cutting benfits due to the increased cost of coverage thanks to Obamacare

[Palin Rider]

And you are showing what a total ass you are

Your obsession with me is approaching the point of near-homosexuality.

[red states rule]

Your obsession with me is approaching the point of near-homosexuality.

Being a troll I can understand your reaction when confronted with facts




snip

age 23.

The union fund faced a “dramatic shortfall” between what employers contributed to the fund and the premiums charged by its insurance provider, Fidelis Care, according to Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU. The union fund pools contributions from several home-care agencies and then buys insurance from Fidelis.

“In addition, new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

Behroozi estimated that the fund faced a $15 million shortfall in 2011 and more in the following years for the coverage of workers’ children.

The union said in a statement that the state required the fund to participate in a new program — the Family Health Plus Buy-In Program — beginning in 2008. The union said it expected that by joining the program, many of its members would qualify for state assistance for health-insurance coverage. “Instead they raised insurance rate increases without any increase in funding, and then cut Medicaid funding to the same workers nine times in the last three years,” the union said in a statement

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/