August 14, 2009
1. If there is a public plan, will that plan have a right of subrogation against any and all awards for damages in a personal injury action? For example, Medicare currently has a first priority lien against any such recovery. Failure to pay that back results in the amounts being deducted from the individual's Social Security benefits until the amount is met. Will other public benefits to a public plan receipient be cut if there is a lien and that is not repaid? If so, does that implicate federalism concerns if the public plan is a federal plan and the public benefit receipts are from state run programs?
2. If there is subrogation, how will the subrogation be accomplished? To continue the Medicare example, Medicare retains for itself the right to determine what injuries are caused by an accident. Will that same position be taken by the public plan? Likewise, it is incredibly time consuming and frustrating to get an answer from Medicare as to the amount that is owed. Will the same procedures be put in place for the public plan? How much will the administrative costs run?
3. If there is a public plan, will automobile insurance companies be permitted to stop offering mandatory medical benefits with auto policies? If not, why not?
4. If there is a public plan, will workers' compensation programs be required to continue to pay for future medical care for an injured worker? If so, why? If not, why not?
August 13, 2009
(There may be a reward for those who read skim to the end)
August 11, 2009
*** This was way better the first times I wrote it.***
Stop. Calling me. A fucking racist. No, put down your fucking latte and get the cum out of your ears. I fucking mean it. STOP CALLING ME A FUCKING RACIST. No, don't talk. If I gave you the impression that this was an honest exchange of ideas between equals, I apologize. No, its a dangerously escalating encounter that could easily result in a very severe beating.
See, the next time some douchenozzle implies that the only way I could oppose his ridiculous social agenda is because I dislike the swarthiness of the president, I'm going to PUNCH HIM IN THE FUCKING FACE. The next time some taintjockey implies that the only way I'd adopt a "keep your filthy government hands off my body" position is due to my discomfort with the darkies, I'm going to familiarize him with my A FIST IN THEIR FUCKING TEETH POSITION.
Apparently you people** think that if our president were as whitedy white as my unsunned ass crack, I'd be fucking yanking my taffee in rapturous anticipation of having the government's rusty nanny rod of equality rammed up my asshole. Funny, I don't recall being so excited about the idea when the president was about as white as a human being can be. Fuck, even if I were president I'd be against it and I essentially agree with everything I fucking think.
Just to make sure you understand my position on being called a fucking racist, I've prepared a simple quiz question you can answer to see if what I've shared has sunk in.
YOU:CALLING ME A RACIST::ME
- A: PUNCHING YOU IN THE FUCKING FACE.
- B: HEAD BUTTING YOU IN THE FUCKING NOSE.
- C: ELBOWING YOU IN THE FUCKING THROAT
- D: KNEEING YOU IN THE FUCKING GENITALS
- E: ALL OF THE ABOVE
P.S. - You may be one of those people that thinks my anger at being called a racist is based on my white guilt.
Fuck you, I explained.
How about I start calling all of you child rapists and see how you like it. No? Well, that must be because you secretly feel guilty for your part in all that child rape. See the similarity? Of course not, intellectual consistency has never been the left's strong suit.
* - For Alice H. While the video I saw doesn't involve that per se, it is certainly enough to inspire that terrible term. I'd share it but it should never be placed on any civilized website and I like you people.
** - What do I mean by "you people?" I mean windowlickers that believe it is more important that everyone have EQUAL coverage no matter how fucking useless they are than that the people who actually contribute to society have GOOD coverage. (Of course, EQUAL will only be for those of us that aren't politically connected or super wealthy. They'll have EXTRA EQUAL coverage.  I mean fucktards that think their so much fucking smarter than everyone else that they should help the government tell them how to live their lives. Freon-huffers that believe that a cocksucking bureaucrat in Washington DC with a political science degree can make more informed decisions about what procedures will improve your health than the doctor with his motherfucking finger in your asshole.
You know, fucking idiots.
August 05, 2009
Here is the imaginary argument I hear about this:
Non-Obama-Worshiper: THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO TURN IN YOUR NEIGHBOR IF HE'S AGAINST THE HEALTH CARE PLAN!
Hope'N'Changer: BUSHITLER WANTED US TO TURN IN SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE AT TRAIN STATIONS AND BY THAT HE CLEARLY MEANT BROWWWWNNNN PEOPPPLLEEEEE AMERRIKKKAAAAA!!!!!!!
Here's the difference dick-fister. Terrorism was and is a very real threat and while even I found the color-coded alert system ridiculous I have no problem acknowledging that being a little more vigilant in public places couldn't hurt. Besides, they've been asking you if you packed your own luggage since long before Bush was in office.
On the other hand, the White House is asking you to inform on fellow citizens if they are promoting information that might prove inconvenient to their political agenda.
Let me repeat that.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES IS REQUESTING THAT THEIR LOYAL SUPPORTERS FLAG FOR THEM ANY SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS THEM IN THE COURSE OF PUBLIC DEBATE.
I don't know how to make this any clearer. Exercising your right to free speech and debate is somehow a development that requires notification of the President of the United States.
It is, by far, the most disturbing development I've ever seen in my admittedly short experience with politics.
Sure, the Obama Administration will claim that they only want information that is "fishy" but it is clear that any information hostile to their agenda would miraculously fit that category. For fuck's sake, the examples they use in that blog post are directly refuted by current versions of the legislation. FUCKING CONGRESS WOULD BE FISHY BY THEIR STANDARDS.
Man, fuck this shit. I'm trying really hard not to get too worked up over here but is this for fucking real? Ahmafuckmyass is the "elected leader of Iran" or... wait no he isn't. I didn't say what I just said. Who are you going to believe, me or your own ears? Sounds FUCKING FISHY TO ME.
Of course Central American leaders should be President for life. They support Universal Health Care INITIATIVES!!!!111
Its times like these I'm really glad my team has all the guns.
August 03, 2009
Should the U.S. government really be in the business of encouraging women to have babies?
Do we really believe the conservative religious line that women who act "heroically" by continuing unintended or difficult pregnancies are somehow more moral than those who chose to abort?
Americans overwhelmingly support family planning. But what's the right thing to do if you do get pregnant when you weren’t planning to have a baby?
Have the baby. Incidentally, the overwhelming majority doesn't support family planning if defined, "abortion as morally equivalent to giving birth."
Is it always or almost always morally superior to bring a child into the world once conceived than to decide that it would be better that this potential person, at this time, under these circumstances should not come to be?
Wow. Umm.... yes?
You can all go over and wade through the rest of these awesome moral arguments if you just swallowed something poisonous. There's a bunch more stupid bullshit in there but after that last question I acknowledged that the author and I don't even have the most rudimentary base-line of commonality on which to base a conversation.
60 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.