Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Contact Denis
About Me
- Denis Navratil
- I love Racine Wisconsin. But I am not naive about the challenges we face. I have chosen the name Free Racine for a reason. For Racine to realize its great potential, we must free ourselves from our own failed policies, from high taxes, failing schools, and self serving politicians.
College Fix
- Althouse
- College Fix
- Journal Times
- LiberTEA Racine Blog
- Protein Wisdom
- WSJ opinion
- blogging blue
- breitbart
- caledonia unplugged
- charlie sykes
- city of racine
- drudge report
- instapundit
- investors editorials
- jihadwatch
- lucianne
- national review
- newsbusters
- racine uncovered
- real clear politics
- real debate wisconsin
- root river siren
- townhall
- wisconsin opinion
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(99)
-
▼
January
(13)
- Character Assassination Starts Now
- Misleading Education Argument Exposed
- The Left and Fantasy Dictators
- Just Wondering
- Economic Miracles
- On Sound Philosophy
- Boring Voter ID Thread
- Constitution Disappoints
- Tucson Explained
- On Tragedies and their Political Uses
- On Crime and Culpability
- On Liberalism and Social Ills
- PC Gun Battle
-
▼
January
(13)
24 comments:
Do those of us without the pull/desire to "give" to the DNC to get a waiver have an equal protection claim?
An even better question Nemo! The answer in theory should be yes. In reality, well, we'll see.
My neighbor's daughter has depression. She is a a very intelligent and creative person, but because of the depression she gets overwhelmed and shuts down when stress becomes too much so she cannot, at this time anyway, carry a full 12 credit load.
Before Obamacare she would have been kicked off her parent's insurance and consequently been denied treatment for her ailment and been totally out on a limb were any other illness or accident to ocur. Fortunately that is no longer the case.
Thank goodness for that. I care about my neighbors.
It's sad that, under the jackboot of Obamacare, the innovations by pharmaceutical companies are going to slow and stop, making your neighbor forever doomed to live with the drugs that don't seem to fully work. Showing (again) that dependency is what you're all about. Sad.
Please Nemo, explain just how Obamacare is going thwart pharma innovation. . . if you can.
Simple economics dear sean. Innovation costs $. No Wait, $$$. Obamacare makes it less likely that Pharma will be able to recover these $$$, let alone make a (gasp!) profit. Result, less innovation.
But you're missing the main point of Denis's post. If Obamacare is so great, why are wavers being given at an alarming rate to friends of the administration? What does that say about equal protection under the law? Looking forward to reading your answers (it should keep you cutting and pasting for hours).
And this just in...Judge strikes down healthcare reform law. So we are going to come back to the market based (reality based) solutions Conservatives wanted all along only now, thanks to Obama's folly, with a solid Republican house and soon to be Republican Senate and President. Heh.
Nemo, please explain how; "Obamacare makes it less likely that Pharma will be able to recover these $$$, let alone make a (gasp!) profit. Result, less innovation."
I'll be glad to explain market forces to you (for the umteenth time) but first it would be nice for you to address the main point of this thread.
Again:
If Obamacare is so great, why are wavers being given at an alarming rate to friends of the administration? What does that say about equal protection under the law?
You don't seem to want to answer these questions and I understand why. It's embarrassing serving a chardonnay with a huge fly in it. Even chardonnay that's not very good to begin with.
sean, while you come up with a new "double plus better" definition of equal protection let me answer your question. More accurately Glenn Reynolds will do my talking.
"The key point, though, is that these treatments didn't just come out out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.
But under a national healthcare plan, the "market" will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs.
It doesn't always work that way, of course. The rise of proton-pump inhibitors like Nexium or Prilosec has made ulcer surgery a thing of the past. But to the bureaucratic mindset, those pills are a cost, and ulcer-surgery expenses can be dealt with by rationing. Let 'em eat Maalox while they wait.
I exaggerate, but . . . well, maybe I don't. The truth is, despite the great promise of new medical technology out there now, in terms of new cancer treatments, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and more, the potential marvels of the next twenty years will never be developed unless some developer thinks there's a market."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds/2009/07/glenn-reynolds-hidden-cost-national-health-care#ixzz1CoXSegQV
Nemo, First of all we don't have "national healthcare" as your Rightwing Rag GOPundit would mislead you to believe. Furthermore, there are no "bureaucrats" in charge other than those at that insurance profiteers as before Obamacare.
Based on the above, I don't believe you have a clue about what you're talking about on this subject. But You said that; "under the jackboot of Obamacare, the innovations by pharmaceutical companies are going to slow and stop" due to "Simple economics dear sean."
By your emphatic statements, you obviously either felt like you knew what you were talking about or wanted to convey that impression to your audience.
Alright then Nemo, simply, in your own words or with citation from a credible news source explain what specific provisions of Obamacare will cause the dire result you're heralding.
I await with great anticipation the next revealing addition of your obfuscatory dance.
Just did sean. Sorry it's beyond your limited abilities to understand. Still waiting for your reply to the main thrust of this thread...
Again:
If Obamacare is so great, why are wavers being given at an alarming rate to friends of the administration? What does that say about equal protection under the law?
I'll assume another non-answer dwelling on asked and answered questions can be interpreted as an admission that Obamacare violates the equal protection clause and is therefor unconstitutional (Unless, of course, if Denis granted you a waver on responding to the post). Heh.
Sean appears to be granting himself a cowardice waiver.
No you didn't Nemo , not even close. Please identify the provision of Obamacare that will make Big (and obscenely profitable) Pharma unable to be profitable and reinvest in new products. Or admit that you don't you don't know.
I've never heard much about the waivers except here and then with no detail about it. I when to tkae a look. but it reading like insurance my eyes glazed over before too long.
As I understand it though this is a temporary measure for a unique set of insurance plans to bridge the gap until 2014 when caps on insurance will be gone completely.
Please explain why this is such a big deal to you guys. I mean besides that you're being directed think that by the information ministers.
Why do waivers matter? Well, if you don't care when government picks the winners and losers, rewards it's allies with pork or general corruption then I guess it's no biggie. I am a strong believer in equal protection for all. Some of us are just strange that way.
As for the decrease in pharma innovation, did you read the link I gave you? Any student of history will tell you that ham handed government manipulation of markets ALWAYS stifles growth and innovation. I'd provide more links to try to convince you, but it would be fruitless. Your mind is clearly closed and Obamacare will be repealed sooner (by the courts) or later (by a Republican Congress and a Republican President (2012! Heh.)).
In the mean time enjoy this clip of Robert Byrd (KKK, West Virginia) as he tells us how [climate] scientists predict less and less snow as the winters go by. Heh.
And I had to include this for Denis because why should sean get all the clips.
Yes Nemo, I read the link and pointed out why it's argument is bogus, We do not have government run socialized, bureaucratized healthcare. That is not what Obamacare is. If you think it is then you've been misled and it's no wonder that you're frightened by the lies you being fed. I see nothing to prevent big pharma from pursuing it's course.
As for the waivers being a source of corruption and the government picking "winners and losers" I don't any evidence for that either, these are short-term stop-gap measures. Again, you're being misled, told to be afraid be very afraid, BOO!, and making mountains out of molehills as you are being directed to do.
Sen Bird was not a scientist, let a lone a climate scientist, therefore any statement from him is of little relevance. What is of relevance is that GOPropagandized little units like you can see all the unussually high intensity, high energy events going on in the atmosphere around them, with the jet stream careening all the way to the gulf coast and having the energy to maintain that extreme position and still believe that the notion of climate change is some vast left-wing conspiracy. But hey, go take another toke off Imhoff's tail pipe to keep your convenient illusion alive.
sean, so is the CBO being mislead about the 800,000 jobs that Obamacare is gonna cost us too? Heh.
The Weekly Standard? SERIOUSLY? You couldn't find a source to give you only one quarter of the truth instead of the half truth you got?
You and your GOPlie-based arguments lose again as they always will when based on lies. You know if Paully "wanna cracker" Ryan says it, it a lie, right? He one of their most skilled liars.
Read it and weep for you false dogma: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/143379-gop-jumps-on-old-cbo-job-numbers
EXCERPT: However, the CBO prediction is a little more nuanced. Last summer's CBO report said the projected labor reduction is "largely" the result of more people voluntarily staying out of the workforce because the healthcare reform law gives them better healthcare options through an expansion of Medicaid and new state-run health insurance exchanges.
From the report:
"The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."
Further, a ban on discriminating against preexisting conditions will likely "increase the appeal" of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers.
"As a result," CBO said, "some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would." END EXCERPT
THAT means they'll leave job openings that younger workers can fill.
Thank you Nemo for your continued service in allowing me to point out the lies required to advance the Con-servatisma.
sean, when you stated that 'Paully "wanna cracker" Ryan' said it did you mean "Paul Ryan" or was it a really bad misspelling "Doug Elmendorf". Given it was Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf that gave the 800,000 jobs lost figure and your issues with a keyboard I'll just assume bad spelling. Sorry to point that out. You're not going to call me an unhappy french black woman again are you? Heh.
Pathetic attempt to dodge the issue Nemo. That fact of the matter is that Paully (the GOParrot, such a pretty boy Ahhck!) LIED. And so did the Weekneed Standard that you quoted along with all the other wingnut media. FACT: The CBO DID NOT say there would be 800,000 jobs lost.
You've failed again because your arguments and your whole ideology are based on myths and lies.
It amazes the hell outta me that these lies are constantly exposed. And yet like whipped puppies you, the Conned masses keep crawling back to your abusive ideological masters for more.
You must love the lies. If you must lie to advance your thoughts, your thoughts are not advanced.
Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000 [jobs lost].
For those playing along at home, Mr. Elmendorf is the director of the CBO.
Heh.
From the CBO report:
"The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."
Further, a ban on discriminating against preexisting conditions will likely "increase the appeal" of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers.
"As a result," CBO said, "some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would."
Nemo, like most Cons will never let go of a useful lie, but rather simply insist on continuous repetition, as if that will convert the lie into truth.
sean, so you are saying that Director Elmendorf did not say,"Half a percent of that is 800,000 [jobs lost]."?
Whastamatta Nemo, cantchya read?
Post a Comment