GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/03/14/conservative-karma/trackback/

  1. HBO doesn’t rely solely on ratings for the premiere episode. They don’t need ratings, they need subscribers. You have to take into consideration VOD, HBO Go and repeat airings. Cable has a potential audience of 100 million viewers. HBO has 30 million subscriber base which is only a third of the exposure. It’s like comparing network numbers to cable. To compare it to pawn star really isn’t fair. Highest numbers for an original movie In eight years is difficult to call a failure.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 14, 2012 @ 10:43 pm - March 14, 2012

  2. One would think a movie about a failed vice-presidential candidate who claimed he could channel the spirits of dead babies, who fussed over his hair like a contestant in a beauty pageant, and who cheated on his cancer-stricken wife with a bimbo he paid off with campaign funds all the while being held up by the MFM (who knew all along what was going on) as the epitome of a happy family would make a much better movie than a story about Sarah Palin.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - March 14, 2012

  3. You know the Limbaugh-haters should have left well enough alone when the talker apologized. I think that’s called quitting when you’re ahead, right? Well, as they continue to demonize the popular broadcaster, his standing among conservatives will only strengthen.

    Sorry, but Limbaugh’s apology doesn’t undo the fact that he revealed himself to be a sexist asshole. This isn’t about advertisers, this isn’t about apologies, it’s about Rush Limbaugh, darling of the conservative movement, being a sexist asshole. And yes! His standing among conservatives will only strengthen! This is the problem! Limbaugh has deftly maneuvered his conservative flock into not caring at all that he made some explicitly perverted comments about women on his radio show, and at the same time has made them more attached to him. What a morality lesson this is – a guy that should know better goes on a rant about how slutty women are, and at the end of the day he’s the hero because he’s so rich, influential, and blindly adored that he’s never truly held accountable. Way to follow along conservatives.

    Comment by Levi — March 14, 2012 @ 10:50 pm - March 14, 2012

  4. Conservative philosophy has in no way been disproven just because Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut.

    Comment by V the K — March 14, 2012 @ 11:04 pm - March 14, 2012

  5. Sorry Levi, I am a conservative woman and I agree with Rush. I wouldn’t have said what he did in those words because that isn’t how I talk. But in a culture of hook ups, and free anything goes, I am shocked that anyone blinked an eye. We all know the libs are hypocrites and this was the best call out of that yet. This is a prime example of keeping the government out of the bedroom.

    Comment by JustShootMeNow — March 15, 2012 @ 12:00 am - March 15, 2012

  6. Conservative philosophy has in no way been disproven just because Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut.

    If you don’t think it’s a black mark against conservative philosophy that conservatives can’t disavow a person who goes on rants about how women who use contraception are sluts, then you’re terribly short-sighted. It’s the 21st century and this is one of the most prominent conservatives in the country, and this is actually bolstering his credibility with most of you. Conservatism is exposed not as a philosophy about government, but as a tribal, insular movement that values identity above all else. A personality cult, basically.

    Comment by Levi — March 15, 2012 @ 12:05 am - March 15, 2012

  7. Sorry Levi, I am a conservative woman and I agree with Rush. I wouldn’t have said what he did in those words because that isn’t how I talk. But in a culture of hook ups, and free anything goes, I am shocked that anyone blinked an eye. We all know the libs are hypocrites and this was the best call out of that yet. This is a prime example of keeping the government out of the bedroom.

    We should keep the government out of the bedroom. We should also keep employers out of the bedroom, which is the issue at stake. What about keeping the government out of the bedroom doesn’t apply to employers, in your view?

    Comment by Levi — March 15, 2012 @ 12:08 am - March 15, 2012

  8. This isn’t about advertisers, this isn’t about apologies, it’s about Rush Limbaugh, darling of the conservative movement, being a sexist asshole.

    It’s not about that either. It’s about a miserable failure flailing about desperately to attract a voting block liberals are SUPPOSED to have all sewn up. It’s also about the utter stupidity and gullibility of the slobbering morons who still adore this ass clown.

    Way to follow along, dipshit.

    Comment by TGC — March 15, 2012 @ 12:14 am - March 15, 2012

  9. Bitch, piss, moan, whine, repeat…

    Comment by Levi — March 15, 2012 @ 12:05 am – March 15, 2012

    Heh. Chumley beat the libtards. Outta sight, man.

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 15, 2012 @ 12:47 am - March 15, 2012

  10. If you don’t think it’s a black mark against conservative philosophy that conservatives can’t disavow a person who goes on rants about how women who use contraception are sluts

    Who is saying women who use contraception are sluts? As JustShootMeNow said, it is hilarious that so many people got so upset about this when society has become so desensitized to sex, and words like “slut” are used so casually. Also, many conservatives rebuked Rush for calling Fluke a slut, but exposing the hypocrisy and drama of the left in such spectacular fashion is a sort of redemption (in my opinion). Also, conservatives accept that people aren’t perfect, and calling an arguably promiscuous woman a slut (and apologizing) is hardly an inexcusable offense.

    Furthermore, if you claim it is “a black mark against conservative philosophy that conservatives can’t disavow a person who goes on rants about how women who use contraception are sluts” (despite the fact that is not what happened) then what sort of mark is left against leftists philosophy when leftists can’t disavow all the blatant misogyny that leftists spew on a regular basis?

    We should keep the government out of the bedroom. We should also keep employers out of the bedroom, which is the issue at stake. What about keeping the government out of the bedroom doesn’t apply to employers, in your view?

    What gives the government the right to control how employers operate?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 15, 2012 @ 1:01 am - March 15, 2012

  11. We should also keep employers out of the bedroom, which is the issue at stake. What about keeping the government out of the bedroom doesn’t apply to employers, in your view?

    Comment by Levi — March 15, 2012 @ 12:08 am – March 15, 2012

    That’s easy.

    - If my employer doesn’t offer contraceptive coverage, I can purchase it myself

    - If I absolutely must have my employer pay for contraception, I can change employers.

    - In either case, my employer has no power to prevent either or put me in jail for exercising or not exercising either.

    In contrast, the government CAN force me to do something and jail me for not doing or doing it.

    The fact that you don’t understand the difference between government and private employment shows, frankly, that you are completely and totally ignorant — or blinded by your ideology.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 2:06 am - March 15, 2012

  12. Meanwhile, in regard to Fluke, it’s rather funny that she’s throwing a temper tantrum and screaming that people need to pay thousands of dollars for her contraception that she supposedly can’t afford — when she and her trust-fund sex partners can go romping through Spain and Italy without a care in the world.

    No wonder Levi is screaming. Poor little boy’s lies are coming unraveled as we figure out Fluke is just like Levi — a spoiled little rich brat who is trying to force all of us to pay his bills at gunpoint.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 2:20 am - March 15, 2012

  13. “Slut” was the wrong word for condemning Fluke, because it denotes someone who has casual sex partners, without being paid. Maybe that’s Fluke and maybe it isn’t, but either way, the issue isn’t Fluke having a sex life; it’s that she wants to be paid for it (that is, to be subsidized by others). Her demand for payment is the real issue, and as such, it makes her a prostitute, not a slut.

    Also her insistence on using government force to extort that payment from others including Catholic institutions… so, “thief”, “parasite” and “fascist” also work, as descriptors for Fluke. But not “slut”. No, sirree. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 3:26 am - March 15, 2012

  14. Cine and of course Levi either miss the point, or ignore it.
    Two points come from the low ratings the show got.
    1 HBO got more from this than anything in the last 8 years? that means they been making trash no one wants to watch.
    2 a crappy show about people trying to get famous by selling things to some one gets more viewers on a repeat…but one is always viewable to anyone with cable (or sat. is there a package out there without History?) but has a hundred competitors every showing and the other should be so good people pay for it, (though some cable and sat packages include HBO whether you want it or not) yet most subscribers really could not be bothered.

    Also, I’m not positive Fluke is a slut…but sitting there and demanding financial compensation for sexual activity is the actions of a prostitute..If I were Rush, I might have apologized for the slut statement…but sorry, the Prostitute statement hold true.

    She wants to be an activist? She needs to go to a Madrassa and do her womanly demanding to Islam that they give her equal rights as She sees them, and pay her for Christian votive candles then allow her to set up a Shrine to Mary and while they’re at it build a Synagog on the Mosque property. This is essentially what she did to the Jesuits

    Comment by JP — March 15, 2012 @ 3:27 am - March 15, 2012

  15. She wants to be an activist? She needs to go to a Madrassa

    Excellent point, one so obvious that we are in constant danger of forgetting it: the modern Left are cowards, talking big, but always against the easy target, the target that poses NO physical danger. (Christians / forms of Christianity).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 3:39 am - March 15, 2012

  16. No, Rush Limbaugh’s comments are not a “black mark again conservatism,” they are only a black mark against Limbaugh. The ideas are much bigger than then man.

    The left is really is a personality cult. Perhaps, that is why they fail to see that.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2012 @ 5:32 am - March 15, 2012

  17. I’m slightly warming to “crypto-fascist whore”. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 5:55 am - March 15, 2012

  18. Sorry, but Limbaugh’s apology doesn’t undo the fact that he revealed himself to be a sexist asshole.

    At least he has appologized.
    From elsewhere
    “Authentic? Principled? The woman quit her public service job to transform into a highly-paid, responsibility-free sh*t-talker.”
    “This woman is an idiot.”
    “Who cares? The media does a terrible job and Sarah Palin is a sideshow. They’re made for each other.
    “she’s just a pretender
    “she is a complete moron”
    “Because Because she’s a moron. … She’s a terrible advocate for conservativism and she comes across like a complete asshole.”
    “she doesn’t know how to think or speak”

    So, Levi doesn’t even have an apology to hide behind the fact that he’s a sexist pig.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 7:53 am - March 15, 2012

  19. @11,

    Responsiblilty? Self control? Maturity?

    You keep using these words, I do not think the left knows what they mean.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 7:55 am - March 15, 2012

  20. conservatives can’t disavow a person who goes on rants about how women who use contraception are sluts

    Rattlesnake @ #10 pointed out that this analysis of what Rush said is false and is an entire fabrication posing as a fact.

    Levi, however, so wants this to be the perceived “truth” that he actually went out of his way to italicize the lie.

    Now the question remains whether Levi meant the blatant lie or if Levi is so easily duped by his need to feed his ideological ego that he found this lie somewhere else and quickly ran here to paste it up for all to see.

    It really does not matter how a useful idiot is informed. It only matters that he be programed to carry out the mission, even if he self destructs in the process. That’s why they use idiots for utility missions.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 15, 2012 @ 10:49 am - March 15, 2012

  21. In Fluke’s testimony, she advocated on behalf of those who couldn’t afford contraception, as well as though who suffered from medical conditions who needed the contraception for non-sexual-related matters.

    Shame on all of you at GP who have misrepresented her testimony and/or didn’t even bother to read it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 11:57 am - March 15, 2012

  22. Now the question remains whether Levi meant the blatant lie or if Levi is so easily duped by his need to feed his ideological ego that he found this lie somewhere else and quickly ran here to paste it up for all to see.

    Can’t it be both? (The liar lies first to himself, to gin up his own enthusiasm, Orwell-style.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 15, 2012

  23. she advocated on behalf of those who couldn’t afford contraception

    “It’s not for myself – it’s for others – won’t somebody PLEEEEZ think of the CHILDREN!!!1!” – the classic lie of the leftist. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Rejected.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - March 15, 2012

  24. (continued) Further to point out: THERE IS NO ONE WHO CANNOT AFFORD CONTRACEPTION. No one!

    1) Take the bus to the nearest county health office and scoop up some of the free condoms they will gladly give you.
    2) Ask your boyfriend(s).
    3) If all else fails, try abstinence (the ultimate contraception).

    Anybody who seriously thinks that either they, or other people in the world, “cannot afford contraception” is not a mentally normal adult and, for the latter reason, should not be having sex.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - March 15, 2012

  25. that means they been making trash no one wants to watch.

    JP >> The Pacific (the companion piece to Band of Brothers), John Adams, Generation Kill, etc.

    You can decide for yourself if it’s trash, but there might be a thing or two in that group you might actually be interested in.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - March 15, 2012

  26. Actually Vince, she advocated for non-existant people. Like her “friend” who lost an ovary because her health plan didn’t cover contraceptives.

    Except the college insurnace (like most insurance plans) does cover birth control for such a thing.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 12:13 pm - March 15, 2012

  27. free condoms

    Please explain how condoms are supposed to help deal with non-sexually-related medical conditions that are medicated and treated specifically with contraception.

    Please also explain how condoms help regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle and provide hormonal balance.

    Please also further explain how advocates don’t have a place in congressional hearings. (Isn’t lobbyist another name for them in other contexts?)

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:18 pm - March 15, 2012

  28. Except the college insurance (like most insurance plans) does cover birth control for such a thing.

    Please show me wear Georgetown’s policy covers this.

    And, why does no one on here not have a problem with Georgetown University’s insurance mandate requiring student’s to enroll in their plan?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - March 15, 2012

  29. a plan, not their plan.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - March 15, 2012

  30. *graduate students who are full-time, which Fluke may have been testifying on the behalf of, considering that she was herself.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - March 15, 2012

  31. why does no one on here not have a problem with Georgetown University’s insurance mandate requiring student’s to enroll in their plan?

    It’s a private actor saying “These are the terms upon which we are willing to do business. You are also a private actor and if you don’t like us, you have other choices.” It’s called freedom, Cinesnatch. Look into it.

    Please explain how condoms are supposed to help deal with non-sexually-related medical conditions that are medicated

    Ah, the Cinesnatch goalpost-shifting.

    con·tra·cep·tion (kntr-spshn)
    n.
    Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

    So, contraception **by definition** refers to prevention of pregnancy **alone**. When a chemical that happens to have uses as a contraceptive is needed and used for a different purpose, it is then a medicine, and is covered under insurance accordingly (probably including Georgetown’s). Different subject. But, that fact doesn’t help you here, so you will disregard it, following your established M.O. “When I said contraception, I secretly meant my own special definition so that even after you proved me wrong, I could still claim that I was right.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 12:31 pm - March 15, 2012

  32. …her insistence on using government force to extort that payment from others including Catholic institutions… so, “thief”, “parasite” and “fascist” also work, as descriptors for Fluke.

    I’ll see your “thief,” “parasite” and “fascist…” and raise you a “moocher” and a “looter.”

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — March 15, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - March 15, 2012

  33. Why Vince, did you not read Ms. FLuke’s testimony?

    A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.

    Shame on you for misrepresenting Ms. Fluke’s testimony and/or not bothering to read it.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 12:40 pm - March 15, 2012

  34. Heh :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 12:42 pm - March 15, 2012

  35. (probably including Georgetown’s)

    Please provide your evidence that their policy covers such medical conditions, as Fluke’s testimony asserted that it didn’t. And, if you are asserting that she is wrong, then please provide your evidence.

    The program you talk about is offered to certain local businesses that participate in the ScriptSave program, as The Daily Caller has now made a rather glaring correction to a recent article it published.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - March 15, 2012

  36. why does no one on here not have a problem with Georgetown University’s insurance mandate requiring student’s to enroll in their plan?

    Ah Vince, must you be so misinformed?
    Most students who are charged Georgetown University tuition and registered in resident thesis research or registered for nine or more credit hours in a GU degree program (eight or more credit hours if a law or graduate student) are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.
    [emphasis mine]

    So the Private college, which the student chooses to go to, has requirements that the student has to meet. They also include an opt out option.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - March 15, 2012

  37. Please provide your evidence that their policy covers such medical conditions, as Fluke’s testimony asserted that it didn’t.

    Except of course it did.

    Shame on you for misrepresenting Ms. Fluke’s testimony and/or not bothering to read it.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 12:53 pm - March 15, 2012

  38. There are other institutions where that requirement is not mandated. But, hey, just shoot the advocate.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - March 15, 2012

  39. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - March 15, 2012

  40. Please explain how condoms are supposed to help deal with non-sexually-related medical conditions that are medicated and treated specifically with contraception.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:18 pm – March 15, 2012

    The only “medical condition” that is treated with contraceptives is fertility. What you are describing is hormonal treatment, which may be delivered using an existing product that can also be used for contraception. It’s similar to the fact that aspirin is normally considered an analgesic, but can also be prescribed (and covered under insurance) as a blood-thinner.

    And it turns out that yes, Georgetown’s plan does indeed cover that type of hormonal therapy — as even the liar Fluke had to admit in her “testimony”, and as others have confirmed CITING her “testimony”.

    So what this is about is a rich liar who can afford to go romping around Spain and Italy with her trust-fund baby sex partners, but who screams and whines and demands that taxpayers be forced to pay for her abortions.

    Conservatives understand something very basic that seems to elude you, Cinesnatch: do not spend money on fancy vacations when you can’t afford to pay for basic expenses. Fluke is spending thousands of dollars on fancy vacations, but screams and whines that she can’t pay her bills and demands that the rest of us do it for her.

    Next:

    And, why does no one on here not have a problem with Georgetown University’s insurance mandate requiring student’s to enroll in their plan?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:22 pm – March 15, 2012

    Easy.

    First, read the following statement (emphasis mine):

    Most students who are charged Georgetown University tuition and registered in resident thesis research or registered for nine or more credit hours in a GU degree program (eight or more credit hours if a law or graduate student) are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.

    So for starters, we recognize that Georgetown’s “mandate” does not require you to enroll in their plan, as you stated; you may show proof of equivalent coverage in another plan.

    Second, conservatives like ourselves, actually being employed, know that this is typical for employers as well; you are only allowed to opt out of coverage through an employer if you provide documentation that you have equivalent coverage from another source.

    Third, those of us conservatives who actually do this sort of thing for a living understand why; it means that, when you opt out of a medical plan, your demonstration of other coverage elsewhere neatly removes any possibility of your trying to come back and sue the employer for a) not offering you coverage or b) to make them pay your bills for something your own insurance didn’t cover. That reduces premiums for everyone else in the employer plan, since it reduces risk of unexpected and fraudulent claims from a Fluke who refuses coverage, then comes running back and tries to force the plan to pay her bills for her when she already turned it down.

    Finally, we conservatives understand that you have a choice in universities. If you don’t like Georgetown’s mandate, go somewhere else that doesn’t have one. You DON’T have that choice under a government mandate — not unless you’re going to argue that such people should leave the country, and that blows up in your face since Obamacare specifically exempts illegal immigrants from having to buy insurance (convenient leftist spin site for Obamacare).

    In short, Cinesnatch, you clearly haven’t done ANY research beyond reading your Obama talking points and listening to your fellow brainwashed Obama tool Levi, all of which are pure propaganda.

    And this is why no one in conservativism or the Republican Party takes gays seriously; they know full well that gays like you have never bothered their pretty little heads with anything beyond, “Obama awesome, conservatives evil”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - March 15, 2012

  41. Please explain how condoms are supposed to help deal with non-sexually-related medical conditions that are medicated and treated specifically with contraception.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:18 pm – March 15, 2012

    The only “medical condition” that is treated with contraceptives is fertility. What you are describing is hormonal treatment, which may be delivered using an existing product that can also be used for contraception. It’s similar to the fact that aspirin is normally considered an analgesic, but can also be prescribed (and covered under insurance) as a blood-thinner.

    And it turns out that yes, Georgetown’s plan does indeed cover that type of hormonal therapy — as even the liar Fluke had to admit in her “testimony”.

    So what this is about is a rich liar who can afford to go romping around Spain and Italy with her trust-fund baby sex partners, but who screams and whines and demands that taxpayers be forced to pay for her abortions.

    Conservatives understand something very basic that seems to elude you, Cinesnatch: do not spend money on fancy vacations when you can’t afford to pay for basic expenses. Fluke is spending thousands of dollars on fancy vacations, but screams and whines that she can’t pay her bills and demands that the rest of us do it for her.

    Next:

    And, why does no one on here not have a problem with Georgetown University’s insurance mandate requiring student’s to enroll in their plan?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:22 pm – March 15, 2012

    Easy.

    First, read the following statement (emphasis mine):

    Most students who are charged Georgetown University tuition and registered in resident thesis research or registered for nine or more credit hours in a GU degree program (eight or more credit hours if a law or graduate student) are eligible and required to enroll in the most comprehensive student injury and sickness plan offered through the University, unless their other insurance coverage meets specific University requirements.

    So for starters, we recognize that Georgetown’s “mandate” does not require you to enroll in their plan, as you stated; you may show proof of equivalent coverage in another plan.

    Second, conservatives like ourselves, actually being employed, know that this is typical for employers as well; you are only allowed to opt out of coverage through an employer if you provide documentation that you have equivalent coverage from another source.

    Third, those of us conservatives who actually do this sort of thing for a living understand why; it means that, when you opt out of a medical plan, your demonstration of other coverage elsewhere neatly removes any possibility of your trying to come back and sue the employer for a) not offering you coverage or b) to make them pay your bills for something your own insurance didn’t cover. That reduces premiums for everyone else in the employer plan, since it reduces risk of unexpected and fraudulent claims from a Fluke who refuses coverage, then comes running back and tries to force the plan to pay her bills for her when she already turned it down.

    Finally, we conservatives understand that you have a choice in universities. If you don’t like Georgetown’s mandate, go somewhere else that doesn’t have one. You DON’T have that choice under a government mandate — not unless you’re going to argue that such people should leave the country, and that blows up in your face since Obamacare specifically exempts illegal immigrants from having to buy insurance (convenient leftist spin site for Obamacare).

    In short, Cinesnatch, you clearly haven’t done ANY research beyond reading your Obama talking points and listening to your fellow brainwashed Obama tool Levi, all of which are pure propaganda.

    And this is why no one in conservativism or the Republican Party takes gays seriously; they know full well that gays like you have never bothered their pretty little heads with anything beyond, “Obama awesome, conservatives evil”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - March 15, 2012

  42. #28 “Please show me wear Georgetown’s policy covers this.”

    Now that Vince has been shown this, he then states.

    “There are other institutions where that requirement is not mandated.”

    Funny Vince, do you install those goal posts yourself?

    Shame on you for misrepresenting Ms. Fluke’s testimony and/or not bothering to read it.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - March 15, 2012

  43. There are other institutions where that requirement is not mandated.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:54 pm – March 15, 2012

    Yup. Which means that, if you don’t want to abide by Georgetown’s mandate, you are free to enroll elsewhere.

    Now, explain to us how we’re supposed to “go elsewhere” with the Obamacare mandate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - March 15, 2012

  44. For my friend … she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor …

    Did you skip over that part TLW?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 1:04 pm - March 15, 2012

  45. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 12:59 pm – March 15, 2012

    So produce this “friend” and these “20% of women”.

    What’s that? Oh, right, asking that you actually provide facts makes you a misogynist.

    Meanwhile, Snatchy, what about Fluke screaming that she can’t afford contraception while showing off her vacation snaps of her running around Spain and Italy in swanky hotels?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - March 15, 2012

  46. Well it’s clear Vince can’t admit when he’s wrong. Sandra Fluke admitted that Georgetown does cover hormone treatment for non-contraceptive purposes. Vince tries to ignore this.

    Shame on you for misrepresenting Ms. Fluke’s testimony and/or not bothering to read it.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - March 15, 2012

  47. Fluke also testified that there is a screening process the University implements that doesn’t follow through with the “cover” part. How is that “coverage”?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - March 15, 2012

  48. Shocking that the university’s health care program which does cover contraceptives doesn’t just toss them out like candy.

    Shame on you for misrepresenting Ms. Fluke’s testimony and/or not bothering to read it.

    BTW, can we really call it ‘testimony’?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 15, 2012

  49. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - March 15, 2012

  50. Funny, 100% of my friends at Georgetown have had no trouble procuring medically neccessary care.

    My numbers are just as valid as hers.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - March 15, 2012

  51. Will this comment close the italics? Test….

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - March 15, 2012

  52. I tried that

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - March 15, 2012

  53. Intervened to fix the italics issue. :-)

    Please, friends, keep your comments civil.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 15, 2012 @ 2:04 pm - March 15, 2012

  54. Fluke also testified that there is a screening process the University implements that doesn’t follow through with the “cover” part. How is that “coverage”?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 1:11 pm – March 15, 2012

    Funny, Cinesnatch, you and yours regularly hold up Medicaid and Medicare as prime examples of what you want to impose on us, but the facts are that those two deny nearly twice as many claims as private insurers.

    And how do you sue them, like you could a private insurer? Oh, that’s right, it’s the government; you can’t.

    So what we see is you not only tolerating, but demanding expansion of a system that is twice as bad as the one you and yours are claiming is a human-rights violation in terms of claims denial, and which would neatly eliminate any choice or right of appeal.

    You continue to amuse, Cinesnatch. Your parents allegedly fled Communist regimes that blathered about how they represented the people, how private companies were always evil, how everyone had a “right” to guaranteed jobs and healthcare and the like, and how the government had to completely take over society to “protect” people — and here you are trying to repeat that failed-state experiment in just a single generation.

    I haven’t yet decided whether your doing so is an indictment of the public school system or whether you just are that pathetically power-hungry that you think you won’t get similarly dinged.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - March 15, 2012

  55. Meanwhile, I seem to remember the Obamaphiles like Serenity, Cas, Levi, and Cinesnatch going after Sarah Palin for her alleged lack of knowledge of history and misquoting.

    Now let’s see what they do with Baraka’s ACTUAL lack of knowledge of history and misquoting.

    Or more precisely, what new ad hoc rationalization they create.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - March 15, 2012

  56. I can’t read your comments ND30, because my prescription is four-years-old and it’s time for a new one. However, I saw a bunch of blurry nonsense that went on ad infinitum, so I figured you left it. But, the insurance I pay $300/month for privately doesn’t offer vision, so I won’t be able to read it anytime soon.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - March 15, 2012

  57. Wow, a medical condition that prevents the person from reading facts…

    NDT, Also don’t forget that Medicare/Medicaid don’t have a reason to combat fraud as vigorously as the private sector, and their fraud rate is much higher.

    Still waiting for Vince to produce the friend and 20% that Sandra Fluke talked about.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 15, 2012 @ 3:01 pm - March 15, 2012

  58. Still waiting for Vince to produce the friend and 20% that Sandra Fluke talked about.

    Perhaps if Rush Limbaugh posed this question rather than the alternative, it would have changed the course of the national conversation to prove whether or not she was bluffing or indeed telling the truth.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - March 15, 2012

  59. Actually, TLW, I have a medical condition that could easily be rectified, but LASIK and PRK are considered “cosmetic” procedures. Viva la capitalism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - March 15, 2012

  60. Actually, TLW, I have a medical condition that could easily be rectified, but LASIK and PRK are considered “cosmetic” procedures. Viva la capitalism.

    Well, there ya have it. Vince fakes a medical condition to avoid confrontation with the fact that Sandra’s every bit as credible as Squeaky Fromm.

    Never thought I’d see the day, I tells ya…

    Comment by My Sharia Moor — March 15, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - March 15, 2012

  61. Actually, TLW, I have a medical condition that could easily be rectified, but LASIK and PRK are considered “cosmetic” procedures. Viva la capitalism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 3:07 pm – March 15, 2012

    Mainly because glasses and contacts beautifully rectify the situation.

    However, numerous health insurance plans provide a discount for LASIK, and the cost is a deductible medical expense, meaning that you can take it off your taxes.

    Meanwhile, Snatchy, I had LASIK about eleven years ago, at a cost of $3,000, when I was still in graduate school. I borrowed the money to pay for it and paid it off over three years.

    Which is why I can see just fine, and you are still whining and demanding that someone else pay your bills so you can get what you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - March 15, 2012

  62. And lasik today is considerably cheaper than $3,000.

    Cinesnatch has touched on one of the prime examples of capitalism at work: the efficiency of the market makes things cheaper and better, over time. At some places, it is now as cheap as $500. If lasik were a covered (i.e. government-managed) procedure, it would be going up like everything else the government touches… not down. In other words, it would be something like $10,000 today, or $30,000.

    I’m not sure I have words to describe the utter cluelessness of someone who can take one of the great examples of why free markets are so much better than government-managed markets, and pretend that it somehow means the opposite.

    Likewise, I’m at a loss for words to describe the irresponsibility and vacuousness of someone who seriously thinks that other people ought to pay for his own, $500, optional (or essentially cosmetic) procedure. Such a person is so left-wing at heart, the mind boggles to think they could ever have had any other political leanings.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 7:01 pm - March 15, 2012

  63. and the cost is a deductible medical expense, meaning that you can take it off your taxes

    But that would require you to work at a job, and pay taxes to begin with. Speaking generally (not naming names, or giving any bio details – that I don’t actually know or care to know), it’s clear that not everyone who is able to do that, is willing to. Roughly half of Americans who do work, pay no income taxes; they just constantly expect others to pay more and more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2012 @ 7:07 pm - March 15, 2012

  64. So, Cinesnatch is whining because the free market makes him pay for things he thinks should be provided to him for free and paid for by other people.

    Poor baby.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - March 15, 2012

  65. The problem side-effects of Lasik include: light sensitivity, permanent dry eye condition, sun sensitivity, halos, floaters, ghost images, loss of contrast, astigmatism, macular holes and more.

    So, since lasik is performed as an alternative to wearing glasses or contacts, it has been classified as a cosmetic procedure which is undertaken at the request of and with the full consent of the patient who accepts the responsibility of possible negative side effects.

    So here we have Vince who wants the taxpayer to pick up the tab for his vanity treatment. Are we to assume that he will go away quietly if he ends up with worse conditions because of the surgery he initiated and chose to undertake?

    In other words, Vince does not “want” the surgery enough to save up the money and pay for it. But if he is of a mind that “we the people” should pay for the surgery for him, why would we think he would not scream bloody murder and demand disability payments if he ends up with dry eyes or sun sensitivity?

    Right now, I “want” a glass of wine. In fact, I am going to have a glass of wine. Unfortunately, I will have to pour it from a bottle that I had to purchase. How come things work that way? If I “want” it, shouldn’t somebody richer than I have to provide it to me free of charge?

    If there is a distinction to be made between my glass of wine and Vince’s whine concerning glasses, I would be interested to know what it is.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 15, 2012 @ 7:49 pm - March 15, 2012

  66. We should also keep employers out of the bedroom,

    Doesn’t insisting someone come into your bedroom, pay for what you want and then insisting they get out make a….oh, what’s the word I’m thinking of….?

    Comment by TGC — March 15, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - March 15, 2012

  67. And lasik today is considerably cheaper than $3,000.

    It’s also not full-proof and you’ve got to be kidding me if you would trust your eyes to one of those “pay for one eye, get the other free” deals which come to roughly that amount. Maybe you would, but not me. Many of those establishments use procedures that are one-size-fits all and don’t address such conditions as astigmatism.

    If you want a professional you can have confidence in, as well as one that knows what they’re doing and know how to operate on people who are legally blind without visual aide, as well as other specific conditions, you have to pay for it. LASIK procedures can top out at just under $10,000.

    The free market also provides crap like spam.

    And, I never said I expected to have the procedure fully paid for. But, considering I pay $300/month for insurance (half a house payment in some areas), a little assistance for such a procedure would be warranted, especially for someone who has taken the time to find a reputable opthamologist.

    By the way, I have a job and I pay taxes. I am an independent contractor and have to rely on the “free market” to provide me with my private insurance “options,” which all of you seem extoll the virtues of.

    And, no, it’s not for vain purposes. I now where glasses because it got a little tiring having to endure the 5-minute bout of pain I experience 3 to 4 times a day, every time a microscopic bit of dust got under my lens. Try it sometime. It’s especially fun while driving on the highway at 65 mph. And, if you are physically active, and wear glasses, and are legally blind without them, there are certain things that become, shall we say, impossible, like, say, swimming in the ocean, for one.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - March 15, 2012

  68. As someone who grew up on a ranch full of dust and hay, lifeguarded and swam, rodeoed, played high school and college football, and worked his way through college and grad school, all while being legally blind and with eyes at the limit of LASIK correction, who THEN had LASIK and paid for it himself, all I can say is….

    Hahahahahahahaha!

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 15, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - March 15, 2012

  69. Um… I know this sounds crazy… but has Cinesnatch ever considered… y’know… saving up for his Lasik surgery or taking out a payment plan?

    That’s what I do when I really want something I don’t have the money for. You know I just left a job where I had over a month of vacation banked, That’s like an extra month of income this year. Because I chose long-term savings over immediate gratification.

    Hell, I’m ineligible for Lasik. I am farsighted in one eye, nearsighted in the other. I love sports, but this condition so fouls my depth perception that anything involving throwing, hitting, or catching a ball is futile. Life is so f–king unfair, ain’t it? So, anyway, I wrestled.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - March 15, 2012

  70. Vince,

    I have worn glasses since forever. I recently gave up progressive lenses for three pairs of glasses to fit my varying needs. It is a major inconvenience at times, but I prefer the solution to being blind and I have tried to develop the grace to be a gentleman about the situation.

    As a Medicare guy, I can’t get squat in the way of “insurance” help. My very fine eye guy has outrageous prices on frames and lenses because most of his patients have “insurance” coverage. So, they jack the prices way up so that they make money on what the insurance pays for.

    Me? I go to Sam’s club and roll out the cash.

    Just what you think you would get with “insurance” coverage for Lasik is beyond me. The insurers and the doctors are not going to bite any bullets for good old Vince who is unknown to them today and forgotten tomorrow.

    Perhaps you could think your gripe through a bit more. What exactly do you want? You want insurance that will cover Lasik? Go buy it. Its out there. But if you want it for “free” maybe you should by an Economics for Dummies book instead.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 15, 2012 @ 9:26 pm - March 15, 2012

  71. Sounds like what you guys are advising is to dump my health insurance and put it towards something I’d rather have and would get more out of and have it paid off in two years. Thanks for the comments.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 9:33 pm - March 15, 2012

  72. And, Helio, would you mind providing the link for health insurance that covers LASIK.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - March 15, 2012

  73. Sounds like what you guys are advising is

    Sounds like you’re not actually reading anything here. Maybe you’re beyond Lasik.

    BTW, my mom had it done for $2,500 ea. My dad had it done for less and his eyesight was as sad as one’s can get without the need for a dog or cane.

    Comment by TGC — March 15, 2012 @ 11:37 pm - March 15, 2012

  74. Heh, more Conservative Karma.

    As Obama said himself. rather than a hip replacement, he’d just give grandma a pill. In what reality would LASIK be approved by goverment health care?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2012 @ 8:44 am - March 16, 2012

  75. Sounds like what you guys are advising is to dump my health insurance and put it towards something I’d rather have and would get more out of and have it paid off in two years. Thanks for the comments.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 15, 2012 @ 9:33 pm – March 15, 2012

    Actually, what we’re doing is something new for you. It’s called “math”.

    You state that you pay $300 per month for health insurance. Fine. You are demanding that your insurance company provide you with a $10,000 procedure for free.

    Divide $10,000 by $300 and you will start to see the problem. That’s the number of months worth of premiums your insurance company would have to get from you to come anywhere near recouping the cost of paying for the procedure – 33.33.

    That is nearly three years worth of premiums just to cover that single event, not including any other doctor visits, medicine needs, etc. — and when one considers that you are free to drop insurance and walk away at any time, the odds are very good that they would never recover that cost from you, and would have to raise everyone else’s premiums to pay for it.

    Hence, if you want it, you pay for it. How you choose to do that is entirely up to you, but as Suze Orman might put it, if you can afford to spend $3 on coffee every day, in a year you’ve spent $1,095.

    And what was thoroughly entertaining was watching you insist that you have to have the most expensive procedure possible done by the priciest doctor possible and complaining that the cheaper alternatives are not as good — when you endorse and support this:

    Mr. Obama seems to think that such judgments are easy. “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well,” he asked, “why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?”

    You see, Cinesnatch, according to Barack Obama, your opthamologist costs twice as much because he’s greedy, not because he’s any better. Therefore he should be forced to cut his prices as the government board orders him to do, and you should not receive LASIK because glasses or contacts are just as good and far less expensive.

    Oh, and since your doctor will be owned by the government, he’s not allowed to do anything other than what the government approves — and since Obamacare’s goal is to eliminate private insurance and private providers to “protect” you, you won’t be able to pay for the better solution yourself — unless you leave the country.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - March 16, 2012

  76. From Comment #67:

    And, I never said I expected to have the procedure fully paid for. But, considering I pay $300/month for insurance (half a house payment in some areas), a little assistance for such a procedure would be warranted

    From Comment #75:

    You are demanding that your insurance company provide you with a $10,000 procedure for free.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 12:16 pm - March 16, 2012

  77. And, yes, both of my parents fled (separately) from (different) communist regimes. My father escaped East Germany in 1951 and my mother was smuggled out of Czechoslovakia in 1960. Do you want me to prove it to you? If you’re going to bring up my parents in the future, I would appreciate you not using the term “allegedly” when it comes to facts regarding their escapes. I have no reason to make something like that up.

    And, yes, I pay $301/month for health insurance. In 2006, I signed onto Anthem Blue Cross, which advertised plans $100 – 150/month for my age group. You know what I qualified for? $149, right at the high end! Go figure. Six years later, my monthly has gone up over 100%. My income certainly hasn’t. And my benefits haven’t changed. Viva la capitalism.

    And, just special for you ND30, I took a screen shot of my bank statement. I’ll gladly you send you the attachment if you provide your email address. Would you also like to see my parent’s long-form birth certificates?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - March 16, 2012

  78. NEVER ONCE on GP, have I EVER questioned anyone’s assertions regarding their personal lives or accused them of making something up in relation to who they are as people. In addition, one of the two MODERATORS on this site (SOMEONE YOU ALL HIGHLY RESPECT) has vouched for my character SEVERAL times on these threads.

    Any argument that I have made for any given topic (whether it be the recent Breitbart thread or otherwise), I have made because I believe it to be the truth, like ANY OF YOU ON HERE arguing for what you believe.

    In the future, anyone else wants to call me a liar or INSINUATE that I might *not* be telling the truth, obviously doesn’t know me or what I stand for and can go stick their doubts in a pipe and smoke them.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - March 16, 2012

  79. Wow. Is anyone else finding funny that the person who said, “Shame on all of you at GP who have misrepresented her testimony and/or didn’t even bother to read it.” was then shown to have misrepresented her ‘testimony’ and or didn’t bother to read it. And now he’s upset that someone (note how he doesn’t call anyone out?) is possibly calling him a liar?

    Shorter Livewire. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

    Back to Karma, it’s funny watching things like this.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - March 16, 2012

  80. In her testimony, despite the friend’s plan covering contraception in situations of medical necessity, her friend did not received “covered” contraception.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - March 16, 2012

  81. Wow. Is anyone else finding funny that the person who said, “Shame on all of you at GP who have misrepresented her testimony and/or didn’t even bother to read it.” was then shown to have misrepresented her ‘testimony’ and or didn’t bother to read it. And now he’s upset that someone (note how he doesn’t call anyone out?) is possibly calling him a liar?

    Shorter Livewire. Get off the cross, we need the wood.

    Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2012 @ 1:17 pm – March 16, 2012

    Bingo, Livewire.

    As we can see, Cinesnatch clearly has experience in throwing these sort of tantrums that are designed to play on the fact that normal people want to be fair and operate under the assumption that if someone is having a negative reaction to your actions that you must have done something wrong.

    However, what people need to realize is that Cinesnatch’s negative reactions, like Sandra Fluke, Barack Obama, and the vast majority of leftists, have nothing to do with you doing something wrong; it has to do with you not giving them what they want or doing what they say. They try to appeal to your better instincts for the purpose of feeding their baser instincts.

    A toddler denied a toy at the grocery store is not making a reasoned argument with rational, objective, and reciprocal criteria; they want the toy, and they are going to scream at you and try to make you feel bad until you give in and give it to them. The same thing is taking place with Cinesnatch, Sandra Fluke, and Obama: they want you to pay their bills for them, and they are going to call you every name in the book, scream, yell, whine, and complain until you give it to them. They do not care how you are inconvenienced, what it costs other people, etc.; they want what they want and they want it now, and if you don’t give it to them, you don’t love them and you want them to die.

    They’re exploiters. They’re moochers. And most importantly, they are abusers of the worst kind. All they do is destroy the people that they associate with because they bleed them dry emotionally, financially, and in many cases physically.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 3:15 pm - March 16, 2012

  82. From Comment #67:

    And, I never said I expected to have the procedure fully paid for. But, considering I pay $300/month for insurance (half a house payment in some areas), a little assistance for such a procedure would be warranted

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - March 16, 2012

  83. And, I never said I expected to have the procedure fully paid for. But, considering I pay $300/month for insurance (half a house payment in some areas), a little assistance for such a procedure would be warranted

    From Comment #75:

    You are demanding that your insurance company provide you with a $10,000 procedure for free.

    That’s right, Cinesnatch.

    You’ve blathered on about your willingness to pay, but you’ve never put a dollar amount on the table.

    So you’re demanding a $10,000 procedure for free.

    If you want to say how much you actually are going to put on the table, that’s another thing entirely. But your primal moocher’s instinct of making promises to pay, but never actually reaching into your wallet is what’s driving this discussion, and I will have nothing of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - March 16, 2012

  84. I’d pay my deductible. Or I’d pay in proportion to whatever my coverage was under the employer plan I had years ago for glasses and contacts.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:29 pm - March 16, 2012

  85. I believe the plan offered x-amount of dollars or percentage every one or two years. 1) It would be nice if they sold individual plans for those who are not employed by businesses with such benefits (especially considering the monthly cost. 2) It would be nice if in lieu of such benefit, one could apply it to surgery.

    That’s all. The payer would have to come up with the rest.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - March 16, 2012

  86. I don’t have the exact figures, because I haven’t had employer-provided health insurance for over a decade. But, from what I can remember, it seemed like a reasonable amount as far as coverage and what I had to come up with. If I were to guess, I would say it was something like 50/50.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:38 pm - March 16, 2012

  87. I believe the plan offered x-amount of dollars or percentage every one or two years. 1) It would be nice if they sold individual plans for those who are not employed by businesses with such benefits (especially considering the monthly cost.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:36 pm – March 16, 2012

    Well, then, here you go.

    Incidentally, the cost for coverage in California for one person is $181.95 annually, plus a $10 one-time enrollment fee — which means you’re looking at 16 bucks a month.

    But like Fluke, your point is not to investigate and make decisions; it’s to scream and demand other people pay for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 3:55 pm - March 16, 2012

  88. ND30, My original plan was all-in-one (including dental). For $301/month, I shouldn’t have to pay an additional amount to get separate vision coverage.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:59 pm - March 16, 2012

  89. And I already knew about VSP.

    But, I will take your earlier advice, cancel my health insurance and invest the $7,200 I would have paid over two years and put it towards my eye surgery. Thank you for the recommendation. I wish I thought of it sooner.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:01 pm - March 16, 2012

  90. Six years later, my monthly has gone up over 100%. My income certainly hasn’t. And my benefits haven’t changed. Viva la capitalism.

    No, Cinesnatch: Viva la Big Government. That’s who is to blame.

    You lefties-at-heart are so funny sometimes. You have a negative, resentful kind of Stockholm Syndrome going. Government abuses you and everyone, making things far more expensive than they need to be… and you keep going back for more. Almost like you prefer to blame your travails on the wrong target. (Rather than confront the powerful abuser?)

    I am an independent contractor and have to rely on the “free market” to provide me with my private insurance “options,”

    No, you aren’t. Because IT’S NOT A FREE MARKET. It’s a market ruined by 50 years of government intervention. And yet you want more!

    We haven’t had a free market in medical services (including insurance) in decades. If only we did!

    go stick their doubts in a pipe and smoke them

    Oooh, Cinesnatch, why sink to that sexual metaphors? (It’s Freudian, at the least. And no, I don’t actually care in the least… just following your example, for one second.)

    Wow. Is anyone else finding funny that the person who said, “Shame on all of you at GP who have misrepresented her testimony and/or didn’t even bother to read it.” was then shown to have misrepresented her ‘testimony’ and or didn’t bother to read it. And now he’s upset that someone (note how he doesn’t call anyone out?) is possibly calling him a liar?

    If by ‘funny’, TL, you mean ‘odd and questionable’… yes.

    the vast majority of leftists… try to appeal to your better instincts for the purpose of feeding their baser instincts.

    Bingo, NDT. Leftists, having little real virtue of their own, try to exploit *your* virtues and sense of honor to manipulate you into giving them whatever they want next. Rand depicted it well in _Atlas_.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - March 16, 2012

  91. (continued) BTW, part of what is going on here is a misunderstanding about what insurance is supposed to do. It’s not supposed to pay for every little thing. It’s only supposed to cover the catastrophic: like car insurance does for car accidents, fire insurance does for houses, etc.

    Part of the many things wrong with medical “insurance” today (and as such, a definite product of government intervention – but I won’t go into that right now) is that it has been warped into a welfare benefit: something that people expect to give them MORE than they paid in, and that people expect to cover every little thing. And leftists love that. They love it when things are warped and misused and abused beyond all recognition, so that leftists can then confuse people even further into giving the leftist what she wants. And so in 2012, we are faced with what Coulter called “insurance as communism”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - March 16, 2012

  92. Not really sure how sticking something into a pipe is sexual, but different strokes … so to speak. But, you’re over-reaching here and referencing a thread where you called me a liar and would prefer not to cop to the false accusation or “insinuation” or whatever it is you want to call it, for whatever reason you choose.

    Are you suggesting it’s Big Government that has eroded employer-provided health plans over the last couple decades now? Please explain.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - March 16, 2012

  93. ND30, My original plan was all-in-one (including dental). For $301/month, I shouldn’t have to pay an additional amount to get separate vision coverage.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:59 pm – March 16, 2012

    Why not? I do. ILC does. V the K does. Heliotrope has to pay extra, despite being on teh awsomness of Medicare and having paid into the system his whole working life.

    Again, it all comes back to mooching, Cinesnatch. You don’t believe you should ever have to pay your bills. You bleat and scream and make up excuses about why I should have to pay them, just like your idiot Fluke, when all it is is that you want to spend the money on exotic trips and alcohol in Europe instead.

    The answer is no. Pay your own damn bills and grow up.

    Bingo, NDT. Leftists, having little real virtue of their own, try to exploit *your* virtues and sense of honor to manipulate you into giving them whatever they want next. Rand depicted it well in _Atlas_.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:04 pm – March 16, 2012

    Bingo. And your eyes are opened when you realize that multimillionaire pigs like Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama who shriek for more money to be taken from the working people and given to “the poor” are taking that money and blowing it on lavish parties and private jets instead.

    Cinesnatch is not poor. He’s lazy. He doesn’t want to work, doesn’t want to pay his bills, and doesn’t want to have to limit his wants to pay for his needs. He loves the Obama/Pelosi Party because they rant about how anyone who has more money than he does stole it from him and how it’s government’s job to pay his bills so he can fart around all day and not have to worry about a job.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - March 16, 2012

  94. SOMEONE YOU ALL HIGHLY RESPECT) has vouched for my character SEVERAL times on these threads

    Depends what you mean by “vouch”. He’s said that you don’t seem like a bad guy. I agree, that you don’t seem like an axe murderer or anything. I can vouch myself for how you seem, on that level.

    Beyond that: people’s biographies, I personally just don’t care to get into, whether positive or negative. Character and reputation (which are, respectively, the internal and external marks of virtue) are established by the choices you make in life. On a discussion blog, you establish them by however you choose to be in the discussions. I don’t care how sincerely you or any commentor may “believe” in your views and/or behaviors, Cinesnatch; when they’re questionable, they’re questionable. Breitbart thread (which you brought up), case in point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:20 pm - March 16, 2012

  95. So, it’s Big Government that raised my insurance rates, not Anthem Blue Cross? Because my bank statement doesn’t read “Big Government” whenever the monthly deduction of $301 comes around. (which by the way, I am required to have automatically taken out. If I want to pay by check, I have to pay an extra fee. But, I guess that’s Big Government’s fault too.)

    something that people expect to give them MORE than they paid in

    I’ve given Anthem Blue Cross more than $15,000 over the last six years. I’ve “enjoyed” about $3,000 worth of services. As well, I make healthy decisions in regard to diet and exercise, so as I do my part to not be a burden on them in the future. Please explain where I’m asking them to give me MORE?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - March 16, 2012

  96. Not really sure how sticking something into a pipe [ed: and telling people to smoke it] is sexual

    Guess you can’t read, then! I already said (1) I don’t actually care, but (2) if I did, well, it’s more than a little Freudian. More than a little.

    Are you suggesting it’s Big Government that has eroded employer-provided health plans over the last couple decades now?

    Absolutely.

    Please explain.

    Why bother? You couldn’t care less. Truly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - March 16, 2012

  97. So, it’s Big Government that raised my insurance rates

    In effect, or under a root-cause analysis: Yes. What Big Government does is f*ck up the workings of the markets more and more, until raising rates is the only thing the supposedly “private” insurer can do to stave off bankruptcy. But again, you truly don’t care. So I’m not going to say any more. No point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 4:28 pm - March 16, 2012

  98. ILC, finding someone’s views questionable is different than accusing them of lying when they clearly were not. You can say you don’t care about a person’s biography or sincerity, but you’ve demonstrated the opposite by making assumptions beyond what was available in print.

    You went off your instincts and made a personal attack based on little to no evidence. You can justify it a million different ways all you want. And if you don’t have the decency to admit when you’re wrong, then so be it. It speaks to your character. I’ve demonstrated on many occasions that I’m willing to own up when I’ve clearly misspoke.

    ND30 reintroduced my parent’s into the conversation and I have every right to defend his insinuation that I conveyed anything less than fact. I took the opportunity to address what I see on this site all too often and that’s misrepresenting a commenter’s argument.

    And, because this is a free country, you have every right to personally attack anyone on this blog and stand by your choice to do so. Congratulations.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - March 16, 2012

  99. Sorry, ILC, sticking something into a pipe is not Freudian. Survey says: Nope.

    And, again with those assumptions, “truly don’t care.” LOL. Mind-reader.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:42 pm - March 16, 2012

  100. ILC is right, Cinesnatch; you truly don’t care.

    Here’s a prime example (emphasis mine):

    The first part of reform is getting Medicare out of the price-fixing business. Medicare sets the reimbursement rates on approximately 7,800 procedures and services physicians perform in the form of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. These CPT codes include everything from a normal office visit to hip replacement surgery. The American Medical Association (AMA) developed the system and updates and publishes the CPT codes annually. All private commercial health insurance companies use Medicare rates as a base. They set their reimbursement rate for the CPT codes as a multiple, usually 110 to 140%, of Medicare’s reimbursement rate. By law, Medicare rates must be lower than private commercial insurance rates.

    For example, the Medicare reimbursement for a standard office visit (CPT code 99213) in my region of Missouri is $52. There is some variation depending on where physicians are located. The typical private commercial insurance reimbursement for the same office visit is $65. The Medicaid reimbursement for the same office visit is $30, which is well below the cost of doing business. The actual billed charge for the same office visit is $93. This is the price charged to a self-pay patient.

    In short: nothing is “free”. The more that the government forces people to give away, the more they have to charge everyone else to make up for the fact, or go bankrupt. This ripples all the way through and drives up the cost for everyone, which means employers have to decide whether or not to drop plans in order to be able to stay in business.

    Liberals like yourself do not understand this. Your toddler-like mentality continues to focus on the fact that Mommy and Daddy have more money than you and therefore they should buy you whatever you want. You don’t care what they have to cut back on or sacrifice as long as you get what you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 5:50 pm - March 16, 2012

  101. You went off your instincts and made a personal attack based on little to no evidence. You can justify it a million different ways all you want. And if you don’t have the decency to admit when you’re wrong, then so be it. It speaks to your character.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 4:38 pm – March 16, 2012

    And there we see the desperate attempt by Cinesnatch to appeal to the fact that he knows ILC actually has and lives by high ideals and morals.

    But we should also remember what Cinesnatch’s admitted point in that thread was to smear, personally attack, and discredit Breitbart by any means necessary.

    So what we have here is admitted gutter trash Cinesnatch, who has stated that any manner of smear, lie, or personal attack is permissible in the advancement of destroying the hated enemy Breitbart, suddenly insist that personal attacks are wrong and that ILC should be ashamed of himself.

    No. You’re a snotty little brat and piece of gutter trash, Cinesnatch. ILC is a better man than you will ever be, and your attempt to exploit his own values and virtues for your own selfish, destructive ends proves it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2012 @ 6:06 pm - March 16, 2012

  102. So Vince is graciously willing to demand that someone provide a service for him at rates of his choosing. How generous of him.

    Oh, and I was waiting for the ‘testimony’ again. Let’s go over the facts.

    1) Contraception is covered for medical reasons at Georgetown.
    2) Fluke (who wasn’t under oath, and wasn’t testifying0 says that a friend didn’t get coverage. a) it is hearsay, and b) we don’t know the conditions. Did a second doctor find a second diagnosis? Did she follow the procedures to get the drug approved? We don’t know.
    3) We don’t even know if this woman exists.
    4) Vince wants to be little better than a thug, taking what he wants on his terms, and being ‘generous’ in ‘letting’ others meet his terms.
    5) Vince also believes that a health plan written by a man who would deny his grandma a hip and believes killing infants is fine would cover better than a private plan.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 16, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - March 16, 2012

  103. Part of the many things wrong with medical “insurance” today (and as such, a definite product of government intervention – but I won’t go into that right now) is that it has been warped into a welfare benefit: something that people expect to give them MORE than they paid in, and that people expect to cover every little thing.

    Most insurance models work on the 80/20 rule. It’s assumed that 20% of the insured are going to eat 80% of the money in premiums. Likewise someone who gets insurance is going to be ‘betting’ that they get more out then they put in. The people taking the money (either the insurance company, or the employer if they’re self insured) are betting the net result is going to be the opposite.

    (Standard disclaimer applies).

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 16, 2012 @ 7:03 pm - March 16, 2012

  104. ILC, finding someone’s views questionable is different than accusing them of lying when they clearly were not.

    Now you’re in “rehash land”. Completely meaningless, unless you provide *links* (so that full context may be examined) to what you’re talking about. Which will then make the thread degenerate into yet another lengthy drama “about you”… and which I know (from past experience) is your ultimate goal.

    It speaks to your character.

    I’m quaking in my boots. The guy who seemingly can’t make a remotely logical or intellectually honest argument, and who acted with unmitigated indecency in the Breitbart thread, says he doesn’t respect my character. ROTFL :-) I mean, like I care… or ought to. Here’s a big, big, big hint for you Cinesnatch:

    stick [your] doubts in a pipe and smoke them

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 7:22 pm - March 16, 2012

  105. Cinesnatch’s admitted point in that thread was to smear, personally attack, and discredit Breitbart by any means necessary.

    Indeed. He acted, in that context, as the moral equivalent of Westboro Baptist: smear a good man who just died, as his mourners are gathering, by any sleaze necessary.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 7:26 pm - March 16, 2012

  106. Beyond that: people’s biographies, I personally just don’t care to get into, whether positive or negative. Character and reputation (which are, respectively, the internal and external marks of virtue) are established by the choices you make in life. On a discussion blog, you establish them by however you choose to be in the discussions. I don’t care how sincerely you or any commentor may “believe” in your views and/or behavior

    Yes! That’s exactly right. On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog. The ONLY thing that matters is your ideas and how well you present and defend them.

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - March 16, 2012

  107. So, it’s Big Government that raised my insurance rates

    Dig Big Government mandate that insurance cover pre-existing conditions? Yes, it did. Who do you think pays for that?

    Did Big Government mandate that insurance cover “children” up to the age of 26? Yes, it did. Who do you think pays for that?

    How many other things are you paying for in your insurance because Government mandates them? How much do you want everyone else’s insurance raised by a Government mandate to cover Lasik?

    Comment by V the K — March 16, 2012 @ 7:36 pm - March 16, 2012

  108. Too logical, V.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 7:38 pm - March 16, 2012

  109. unless you provide *links*

    ILC, use the find function on your computer and type in the word “liar” when visiting the thread where I “depraved” Andrew Breitbart’s memory. You remember the thread. The one where you also called me vile and narcissistic, among other names (because that’s how you roll).

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 10:26 pm - March 16, 2012

  110. P.S. My monthly insurance costs did the greatest part of the doubling before Obama took office.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 10:27 pm - March 16, 2012

  111. 2006 – 2008

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - March 16, 2012

  112. use the find function on your computer

    Very well, I went to that thread. No, I did not call you a liar there. What I did was make a general behavioral comment about how liars behave, that you chose to apply to yourself. I am not taking a position, here, that you were wrong to do so. I am pointing out, rather (and as I did then), that you chose to apply it to yourself.

    Furthermore, you acknowledged (at the time and in your bitter, indirect way) that I did not call you a liar. So you know it, or should know it, now in this thread. And yet you have chosen to misrepresent the matter (as me having called you a liar, then). A knowing misrepresentation… Hmm, what would that be? There is some word for it in common usage… A knowing misrepresentation… what is it?… Oh yeah, a LIE.

    So again, consider applying your own advice:

    stick [your] doubts in a pipe and smoke them

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 11:34 pm - March 16, 2012

  113. And:

    you also called me vile and narcissistic

    But you were. For you to have acted the part of Westboro Baptist there, and in the process making the thread about yourself as usual, was vile. And narcissistic.

    What’s wrong, Cinesnatch – the truth bothering you again? Making you feel “trapped”?

    My monthly insurance costs did the greatest part of the doubling before Obama took office.

    Since I (at least) referred to a process that happened over decades, I’m sure they did. Yet Obamacare is driving them up more. They will double again (and more), before Obama is done with you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2012 @ 11:40 pm - March 16, 2012

  114. You’re right, ILC, I forgot that you you threw out the insinuation of me lying or one who runs with liars without actually outright calling me a liar. I forgot that you got off on a technicality.

    With all the times I’ve been misrepresented on this site, it’s hard to keep track anymore who said what. You’re all starting to blend together.

    I also noticed that you used the word blind in that thread. It appears that I’m not the only one who needs an updated prescription.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 17, 2012 @ 12:23 am - March 17, 2012

  115. Hey Cinesnatch – Congratulations! You’ve kept the focus on *your personal* travails (whether insurance or being such a poor, persecuted victim here or whatever else) so relentlessly, that the thread once is boring beyond description! You’ve won, you reached your goal!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - March 17, 2012

  116. Sorry typo, “the thread once -again- is boring beyond description” – Heh :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - March 17, 2012

  117. HBO could make a movie. Perhaps Cinesnatch: His Tears are For Himself, or Cinesnatch: He Needs the Attention. Then, when nobody watches it and finally a botched hit job on Palin gets 3 viewers, you can point out how the latter is a success because it’s their highest-rated show in 8 years. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 17, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - March 17, 2012

  118. I said it’s hard to qualify it a failure. Never said anything about it being successful.

    Suck it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 17, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - March 17, 2012

  119. … to borrow a phrase from you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 17, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - March 17, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.620 Powered by Wordpress