And where does this “fact” come from? You seem to be very good at supporting these “facts” with references.

No I said, you either have to accept it as factual, or not. Since it's from the WhiteHouse, that means their numbers probably came from the Congressional Budget Office. I don't have a link to know for sure.

Your biased blog came from the Analysis Repository, without data to back it up. Therefore, it shouldn't be accepted as factual.

“No I said, you either have to accept it as factual, or not. Since it's from the WhiteHouse, that means their numbers probably came from the Congressional Budget Office. I don't have a link to know for sure.”

So you took someones opinion at face value because you liked what they had to say?

“Your biased blog came from the Analysis Repository, without data to back it up. Therefore, it shouldn't be accepted as factual. “

Snicker. Wow, that was some amazing irony.

Just because I'm not right wing doesn't mean I think Obama is a messiah and can do no wrong.

Don't blame us. You're the one who tried to pass off a biased opinion as fact.

First of all, the size of laws are ridiculous now. They should put a limit on the size a law can be to ensure lawmakers actually read them. Now to the rest of your post…

Socialized medicine provides better and cheaper care than we currently receive. In fact, one of the best socialized medicine systems in the world exists in the US currently, with the VA hospital system. And having been a patient of VA hospitals on more than one occasion, I would gladly take that option.

The only thing iron-fisted is the one ramming down your throat the beliefs of insurance companies that love their profits that socialized medicine is bad.

Medicaid and Medicare are bastardizations of socialized medicine. You get crap care because they are horrible to bill for providers. Most providers lose money on Medicaid/Medicare patients, due to high overhead associated with running their business (mainly due to malpractice insurance and the cost of certified coders to do the billing).

But thanks for dismissing my previous health care. I must have just imagined the care I received. Or the fact my father is retired military and actually still works in a VA hospital.

I think the current Obamacare is bad too. It doesn't address the issues facing the current system. But once again, rather than say, “hey this article shows that obamacare costs less over 10 years”, you'd rather disregard that point and think I actually like obamacare.

And I know people who were badly treated in hospitals. So badly so they file lawsuits. There is no perfect system. But please, keep calling me a liar if it helps you sleep at night.

I didn't tout Obamacare. I said that this article shows it costs less over 10 years. But yes, that's touting Obamacare. I read the article and pointed out what it said, all hail Obamacare! Good work trying to shove a round peg in a square hole. The personal attacks show how much mental capacity you have for forming an counter point. Well done sir, well done.

I've been treated badly in hospitals. I've been treated great in hospitals. I've been treated badly in VA hospitals, I've been treated great in VA hospitals. I'd still prefer VA hospitals.

Most providers lose money on Medicare patients because the govt doesn't pay the actual cost of care but sets arbitrary limits to the price of a specific service. This cost difference is then passed back to the customers and/or their private insurance, thus driving up insurance rates. The less the govt pays the more the public and their insurance have to pay. Single payer/socialized care is no different, ever.

You get crap care because they are horrible to bill for providers. Most providers lose money on Medicaid/Medicare patients, due to high overhead associated with running their business (mainly due to malpractice insurance and the cost of certified coders to do the billing).

You know, I take issue with your characterisation that Medicare/Medicaid patients receive 'crap care'. If a patient gets 'crap care', that's a function of who his/her provider is, not what insurance he/she carries. I was the HR Executive at a Medicaid HMO for a few years and our health plan for Medicaid recipients provided for more comprehensive care than the best private health plan in the whole state, as did every other Medicaid Plan, by the way. Our patients could avail themselves of the broadest range of treatments available to any insured person in the state. Our patients got more comprehensive coverage than did either NHS or Health Canada patients. Definitely not 'crap care'. And I can tell you that if we had any inkling that a provider was not providing good care to one of our members, he/she would be struck off summarily from our roster of providers. So I wouldn't call either Medicare or Medicaid 'crap care'.

But on to your point about the cost/complexity of billing. Don't kid yourself that Medicare or Medicaid are somehow unique amongst insurers with respect to complexity of billing. They're not. Almost every provider needs and has a billing person on staff, or contracts his/her billing through a billing service regardless of whether they accept Medicare/Medicaid or not. Accepting Medicare or Medicaid doesn't force providers to hire additional staff dedicated to just Medicare or Medicaid billing as you imply. There is no requirement to hire a certified coder imposed by either Medicare or Medicaid.

The real problem with Medicare and Medicaid is that their reimbursement rates are typically set at around 80% or slightly less of the market value for various procedures, treatments and consults. And then those rates get adjusted through DRG's which frankly screw any providers not working in a large metropolitan area. That's why providers are dropping out of Medicare/Medicaid left and right. That's why if you're a senior and your provider retires, dies or moves out of the area, you might not be able to find another provider who'll take you on as a patient. It's not their high office overhead which causes providers to decline Medicare, it's that Medicare reimbursements don't provide an adequate reason for the providers to spend their time with Medicare-insured patients as opposed to patients with other insurance.

But it's more than that. A large part of the reason why Medicare sets it's rates so low is that every year, they cover for substantial fraud and abuse which results from the Medicare payment structure itself. Take a visit to a provider for a follow-up blood pressure check. If during that visit, the provider asks the patient seven additional questions about various aspects of his/her health, that visit goes from the lowest level of care rating all the way to the top level of care rating, which in turn means that the visit is now reimbursed at almost three times the amount as it would have been. So while some providers have to fight Medicare tooth and nail to get what's owed them, the system supports and pays out claims to providers who milk them for all their worth – and they do it well within the legalities of the billing system.

Socialized medicine provides better and cheaper care than we currently receive.

Says who? Based on what? Why do liberals make this claim over and over again without ever proving it?

Does socialized medicine provide cheaper care? Perhaps in some circumstances. I'm sure Cuba's healthcare expenditures are lower than ours, for instance. But then, their healthcare system is one of the worst in the entire world (contrary to what the WHO would have us believe). And many other countries with socialized healthcare spend far more than we do, mostly due to the inherent waste of massive government bureaucracies.

Does socialized medicine provide better care? Absolutely not. All the reports that purport to rank socialized healthcare as “better” than privatized healthcare used massaged data and bogus statistics. Any healthcare study that includes metrics like “equality of access” or “fairness” (where “fairness” is defined as whether a large enough amount of government funds are spent on healthcare) is not credible in the least.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4664

In fact, one of the best socialized medicine systems in the world exists in the US currently, with the VA hospital system.

Oh my Lord. You clearly have never been to a VA hospital if that's what you believe. I don't believe for a second that you are a veteran and a former patient of a VA hospital.

I must be arguing with a 12-year-old.

I clicked on your link but, unlike you, I actually READ the documentation. I went to your first link and read the document from the World Health Organization:

Brazil, a middle-income nation, ranks low in this table because its people make high out-of-pocket payments for health care. This means a substantial number of households pay a large fraction of their income (after paying for food) on health care. The same explanation applies to the fairness of financing Peru’s health system. The reason why the Russian Federation ranks low is most likely related to the impact of the economic crisis in the 1990s. This has severely reduced government spending on health and led to increased out-of-pocket payment.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html

Note their results are based upon health care costs. The problem with our health care system isn't the system itself, it's because the system is expensive. Many factors attribute to our high costs such as required covered for unnecessary health options and litigation factors.

We could be better if we reduced overburdened health regulations but people like you are TOO….FUCKING….STUPID.

Did you notice that other nations that do NOT use a single payer system rated better? In other words, single payer doesn't guarantee better health care. Oh, that's right, you're a liberal which means you want everybody else to research a topic for you.

Dumbass

All other OECD countries have more mechanisms built into their health systems to restrict expenditures than is the case in the United States, even though most if not all people in these other countries are covered by

health insurance. This is done either by regulating quantities or prices or both, including the dissemination of new technologies, or by requiring a greater proportion of costs out of pocket (as is the case in the United

States for long-term care spending, an area where, no doubt as a result, total spending is relatively low). Regulating the price of inputs – doctors’ fees, hospital payments, pharmaceutical prices and so on – is one

way of constraining prices. Controlling volume often requires measures that restrict choice; occasionally limit access to care which someone insured under a typical US health plan would be able to access, or expose

people to the risk of catastrophically high out-of-pocket payments unless a safety net is in place. By paying such a price, the result is that other countries are able to afford universal health care access at a lower cost

than in the United States.

http://www.oecdwash.org/PDFILES/Pearson_Testimony_30Sept2009.pdf

The only major factors that keep costs lower is the restricting of care, not using the latest technology or drugs, and limiting patient options, that's not a better system, just cheaper. And you get what you pay for so I'm happy to more for better, faster, with the best innovations. Sorry you are willing to settle for less.

In no way do costs go down, coverage, quality, and extent of coverage goes down, but costs are not addressed in any way at all. Instead of the finest care in the world you wait in line for second class coverage while the USA carries the bill for all medical and pharmaceutical innovation.

Even England, Canada, and Sweden are moving away from their original plans, acknowledging that they are failed and ridiculously poor coverage.

You must have some sort of mental disability.

Ah yes, the old “I know you are but what am I” defense. Never gets old.

The so-called 2007 energy conservation measure never became law

Who said it did? Just because the bill didn't pass the Senate doesn't mean it didn't contribute to the closing of the plant. Businesses often make decisions based on projections of what Congress will do.

Besides, you're forgetting this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-615

…which DID pass Congress. (That was found by clicking the “Related Legislation” link. What was it you said about your own source refuting your point?)

You're also forgetting that Rangel, the Congressman who introduced the original 2007 bill, has reintroduced it over and over again. (Again, found by checking your own source.) Businesses do pay attention to that sort of thing, you know.

The point (which you seem bound and determined to miss) is that the government contributed to the closing of the plant. That is all that was ever alleged.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Even if you were right about the incandescent lightbulb post (which you're not), that post has nothing to do with this one. The idea that somehow this government report is magically wrong because you don't like the poster who wrote about it on this site is ludicrous.

And then, I said that since he added no references on his data, I either have to take all his data as truth, which means the health care bill lowers cost over 10 years, or I have to take all his data as false, which means the health care bill may or may not raise costs.

Seriously? You cannot possibly believe what you just wrote.

First of all, the New York Times and Fox News articles do not have to show the data from the report. That's not how news reporting works, you silly man.

Second of all, a statement by a White House spokesperson is not “data”. It is a claim, made by a person. If you want data, go read the report by Andrea Sisko of Medicare's Office of the Actuary. There. There's your reference. Go find it and read it.

The media is not going to spoon-feed you all the information you will ever need. At some point you're going to have to figure out how to think and form opinions on your own.

No such measure ever became law

Except this one:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6

I couldn't find it before but that is apparently the act that the article was referring to, and it DID become a full-fledged law.

Ergo, you = wrong.

And even the Medicare Office of the Actuary said costs would be initially higher then decline. That's found just in the Fox News report.

So you admit that Obamacare would increase costs. Thank you.

I guess MartinHale was right. You DO expect everyone to just hold their collective breaths until 2016 when these mythical decreases in healthcare cost will supposedly come into effect.

Awfully convenient for the Obama administration that the supposed “benefits” of his legislation won't materialize until after he's out of office. This way he can claim to have lowered healthcare costs for the rest of his presidency without ever having to prove it!

And when it's Republican-dominated, it will be made up of a bunch of liars then too. The only difference is whether you want the top 5% to get all the income, or the other 95%.

/politce golf clap

Well said.

Interesting how you avoid providing facts and instead, get right back onto your soapbox.

Nice try.

When you successfully complete your task of taxing all rich members of Congress, we'll believe that you're not using the poor as pawns for your socialist agenda. However, since you accept rich lawmakers with the understanding that you'll get freebies in return, we'll simply dismiss you as an oaf.

So you want the government to control the “public pool.”

Ooh, what a great idea! Let's have the government decide who gets the money!

Awaiting the typical stupid “Laws will prevent abuse” meme in 5…4…3…2…

An enlightened voting public. That obviously leaves you out which explains why you vote Democrat.

Your support for more spending shows you have no clue how the economy works.

Child, and apparently you are one, allowing people who pay more than 70% of the tax revenue in this country to keep a little of their hard earned money to use as they see fit apparently is a foreign concept to you.

The small businessman who makes $400k a year from his dry cleaner, tool and die shop, or or business service is not going to the riveria for vacation. You have some fucked up vision of people who have a little bit of money just sitting on their asses.

Nixon is responsible for his own station in life, not the government. Nixon knows several people with a million dollars in assets. They get off their ass everyday and go to work and make something of themselves. They didn't have 5 kids out of wedlock, didn't drop out of school, they had fiscal discipline, deferred most pleasurable activities until later in life, and didn't do stupid things like get degrees in philosophy and wind up waiting tables.

It isn' America's income, its their income. ANd they pay the majority of the taxes so poor people can have their cable tv, alcohol and cigs, and two vehicles, along with their subsidized health and day care.

You are perhaps the dumbest person ever to post here. You make Tom Wark look like a genius. Hell, even chuck and vega resemble einstein compared to you, along with fiza.

You also stereotype, and appear to be a bigot.

If his business INCOME is $400k a year, and he's using a pass through corporate structure, then he will be taxed at $400k a year, the same as an executive making $400k a year.

And that amount is passed on to the consumers. If a corporation's rates go up then prices go up as well.

You're losing, quit while you can.

but since he has the ability to give back to others and improve our country, he will be taxed more.

And that goes to Congress to be wasted on pet projects and pork. Name one government project that has helped the poor and is moving them out of poverty.

Your soapbox is collapsing.

As a self employed person Danny Nixon is aware of the difference in business, gross, and net income, probably more so than you.

The top earners in this country are already subsidizing the poor. You think they should pay more. Yep, that will make the small business owner hire more and expand more for the benefit of higher taxes. Never mind the fact that his employees are paid a wage and put that money into circulation, pay taxes, etc.

And, FYI, street lights and city streets are not paid for by the Federal Government in most instances. Educate yourself, it would be nice.

Your $400,000 income leads on average to 50% in taxes. You think that is fair. Any investments said person makes with already taxed funds will be taxed on the gain (double taxation). You are ok with that. Said person also pays gas taxes, sales taxes, has limited deductions on his taxes, and you are ok with that.

Nixon hasn't seen you advocate cutting spending. Just raise taxes.

Typical liberal.

This comment is so full of lies, including the “if's” “to's” and “%.”

This guy has no clue what he's talking about nor has he obviously been in charge of any business.

But don't worry, that millionaire will fix your roads, or employ you

Well who the Hell else should I expect to employ me, son? The bums living under the bridge and huddling around trash-can fires for warmth?

Oh wait, I get it. You think the government should provide everyone with steady employment. Well, that certainly says a lot about you, although probably not what you intended.

The millionaire won't employ you, if he has enough staff to meet the demand of his company.

And how can he do that without workers?

If all the wealth is going to the millionaire, he won't spend enough to generate demand to get you employed.

Then explain why corporations need skilled workers to ensure profit. Name one corporation that currently works on your little fantasy principle.

You don't 'give up' income, unless you mean by taxes to the US government. Income is earned, you idiot.

About 400% – how about you. If you're still working minimum wage after thirty years in the workforce you are probably grossly overpaid. Even if you earn more than minimum wage you are responsible for your own career development, gaining the experience, skills and education required to advance yourself.

Have an Evil day

And if it has increased 400%, well…we know why you're voting Republican.

You mean, like George Soros?

Another epic FAIL!

In other words, you believe that load of crap.

“5%” of what? Who is distributing this income? Does this include the millionaires of both parties of Congress? When are you going to successfully take the millions away from people like John Kerry?

That's right, this “5%” crap is simply a smokescreen for you to force more government on the rest of the American people.

Obviously, you are incapable to understand the benefits of capitalism over socialism. That's OK because capitalism is designed for adults, not whiny adolescents like yourselves who refuse to earn your own living.

Now run along, little child, and let the adults discuss this issue.

The problem with Socialism is, eventually, you run out of other people's money.

And what is THAT supposed to mean?

If you 'thought', it would be the first time. You think socialism is a good system? That's all anyone here needs to know about you and your vapid economic opinions..

Capitalism is designed to benefit EVERYONE who is willing to work. I benefit from having the money I need to provide for myself and my family, I benefit because through hard work I can be a millionaire.

Socialism benfits only those few who get tell everyone else how to do the jobs of providning for others. Why has socialism failed everywhere it's been tried, but Capitalism is flourishing in more places everyday??

Geramny is primary Capitalust, and didn't try to spend it's out of a recession, China is adopting more capitalist systems all the time, and they do not out perform us in any way shape or form, especially when you look at well their people live compared to elsewhere.

If our government got out of socialism we'd be flourishing, how much growth and expansion, in economics and tech developement happened in the US prior to 1930?? After 1930 the we have slowed in innovation and expansion, and almost all of it can be attributed to SPENDING, it's the one factor that changed in the Fed around 1930. That has not changed at all since spending has been on a near steady rise since 1930, everytime spending or the deficit is cut the economy flourishes. That's something your links about tax cuts never mentioned. Not one of them addressed spending only GDP vs tax rate. Funny how they missed little factor.

Your income compared to cost of living and inflation has been declining. If you made the same salary as your father, you would actually be making less. You have to be getting a raise of minimally 3-4% a year to offset inflation and cost of living. Anything beyond that you would see as additional income from the previous year, but adjusted for inflation and cost of living, would be less than someone would see as income 30 years ago making your salary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Pretty much the only reason we have a middle class now is because both husband and wife work now. There was a really good graph in a report from tax center or cbpp, that I'm still trying to find.

You are wrong. “Household” income has declined while income per capital has increased. “Household Income” has declined because there are more single households than every before not because they earn less.

Find new talking points, liberal.

How does

And we could only hope that Congress would remove benefits for life, their extraordinary pay, or add on term limits to prevent politics becoming a career.

translate to me wanting freebies? In what place outside of politics can you be fired from a job and retain full benefits?

I actually don't support either philosophy. I think the best government is achieved through both capitalist and socialist policies, however with slightly more leaning to socialist policies, since it will benefit the country more.

But once again, no one actually asked what I supported. You just assumed since I proposed socialist ideals I was a socialist. Much easier to stereotype them and disregard them, then to understand and listen. But that is the neo-con phiosophy is it not?

Then I'll ask the question again: Name the countries that are benefiting under socialism.

If you cannot provide a list then you're basing your argument on opinion only. So far, your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth used to post them.

yeah, go ask Castro how that's working out for cuba.

The article isn't “Gov't: Spending higher now, but will be lower under Obama's Health Care Overhaul”.

That's because Fox News reported the truth but you would rather believe in a lie.

Now run off to your nearby intersection to beg for handouts.

Beg for handouts? Do we want to play the, my employee count is larger than your employee count game? This is the internet after all, everyone loves these fun comparisons.

Again, making claims that were not made.

One question: which one of your imaginary friends told you to write that?

You told me to run off to a nearby intersection to beg for handouts, implying that something I've said infers that I need a handout.

No, I inferred that you're incapable of earning a living since you believe all this crap.

The only people who like socialism are: rich lawmakers who benefit by running the system; and losers like yourself who will benefit with freebies without having to earn your own living.

That somehow, you in Right Wing Supremacy are above handouts, and that anyone that doesn't believe the same as you must need a handout.

Don't worry, when the Right Wing Supremacy regains power and becomes a theocracy, we'll still keep you around for entertainment. Every village needs a fool.

You're not only a loser, you're a whiny little bitch.

without understanding that I probably make more than you, employ more people than you, and live in a bigger house than you.

And I'm sure you traveled more, have more possessions, had sex with more women, blah blah blah. I've heard those excuses before.

One difference, my world is not a “SimCity” game.

Does your mommy still make your bed for you?

Pot meet kettle, which socialist nations have a higher standard of living than the US?

“because you can't accept the fact that someone better off than you could possibly support socialist policies. ”

Who is this person you speak of?

The article provides data that says health care costs will be lower under the next 10 years.

Oh really? What data? What report or study does the article refer to that says so? Who made the claim? Have you evaluated the claim and determined it to be accurate?

Oh, I see. The “report” was actually a blog post by a White House spokesperson. A rational person might conclude that they were trying to cover themselves and their claims should be taken with a grain of salt, but apparently you aren't a rational person.

I did read the article entitled “Gov't: Spending to Rise Under Obama's Health Care Overhaul” and in it, it shows that over 10 years, spending will be lower under the plan.

No it doesn't, son. It reports on a claim by the White House that that will happen. It does not in any way substantiate or prove the claim.

Well, I'll see you're liberal think tank (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities? Give me a break!) and raise you

the Joint Economic Committee of Congress

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

the Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm03182003.html

and a paper by Christine Romer (Barry's very own Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors)

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm03182003.html

Cato institute is actually funded by extreme Right Wingers

Media Matters and United for a Fair Economy are funded by extreme left wingers. Therefore, by your own standards, your references are dismissed.

You haven't refuted anything. You don't even bother to read your own links.

Actually, I did. The first link didn't speak to jobs growth, only tax avoidance. Therefore, it neither supports or refutes Reagonomics. The second link had contradictory points in it, but even without those, I refuted it with other sites.

The site I posted had empirical data if you bothered to read it. Every link within that link goes to a full cbpp report which has references to the data in case you wish to perform your own analysis. The only refute I saw to my link was “oh, that's left leaning”, even though cbpp performs analysis that supports both left and right ideas.

Actually, using smoothed data (5 year moving average) is a notoriously dishonest ploy. Of course, smoothed data doesn't show the resulting recovery. It's smoothed out. Moreover, a moving average inherently captures the growth time series rite at the turning point. This is called “cooking the data”. Either you didn't catch that, or you're too dishonest to acknowledge it.

By the way, the Lffer curve does not relate to GDP, but government revenue. Growth results from marginal tax rate reductions even when government revenue falls.

Yes, because believers in Socialism can't have jobs or businesses or homes or anything else.

The true believers in capitalism are going to believe it until they give up their emotional attachment to that discredited ideology. Unfortunately, most of them never will and the rest of us are stuck paying for bailouts and stomaching them pretend to better than other human beings in their delusions.

Capitalism actually led to the rise of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Socialism has led to China, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia (if you take Communism=Socialism, which isn't entirely true). 1 Failure due to a massive military buildup, 2 badly performing countries, and 1 super power.

Capitalism actually led to the rise of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

Yeah, those National Socialists were such evil greedy capitalists.

Bullshit. “Faith based” is an anti Christian term that lefties throw out when they want to discredit a position that they cannot defeat honestly. Your “Reagans Bible” line is pure bunk

Woohoo….look at that melt down. “is everyone on this site stupid?”. They all eventually do something like when they find their arguments smashed and the falicies of their naive world view forcibly pointed out to them.

Look son, (and I refer to you as such because I suspect you are very young person) you got rougly handled, your arguments shot down, and caught lying in the Islam thread yesterday. You are getting your teeth kicked in verbally in this thread. You are batting a thousand. You need to quit while you are behind…or at the very least take a step back and reevaluate your position here.

Finally in responce to your use of the term “neo-con” above, allow me to point out that I'm not a Neo-con. I'm a traditionalist paleo-con. (one of the few regulars who is) So don;t make broad statements about the make-up of the site regulars. I thought you leftists were opposed to stereotyping?

TR

Your “mistake” in the islam thread (were you wound up getting your head haned to you and finally made points that backed up my position) just shows that you have a tendecy to spout off things without thinking. Sadly, many people (on both sides to be fair) have a regretable tendency to do that. At least you were man enough to admit your mistake and try to move on. I'll give you credit for that much. We've got a couple of leftist trolls here who have not mastered that skill yet. For example there is crthns (who now posts under the name “Whats_up) who a couple of years ago spouted off that David Duke supported and voted for Bush in '94. I'm not sure what point he was trying to make, but his facts were incorrect as a search of Duke's web site quickly showed. He never admitted he spoke without thinking and now even refuses to aknowledge he even made that statement. It's permanently harmed his credibility and Nixon loves to rub it in his face every chance he gets.

Next up, if you believe in redistribution of wealth, call capitialism a “failed system” and spout all that “hate the rich” class warfare garbage, then you are certainly NOT a centrist.

Finally, I'll tell you the same thing that I tell all the folks who come here and then are critical of the established norms and how the regulars behave: no one is keeping you here. There are plenty of other sites out there that might fit your needs better than this one. I can even recomend some if you like.

Look, you have not degenerated into a troll yet (as most of our leftist guests do) but given some of your behavior you certainly have the potential. You might rethink your being here before you make that slide and it gets REALLY nasty for you.

Just a freindly bit of advice for what it's worth.,,,

TR

It gets that way because the posters on this site act like little kids screaming with their thumbs in the ears.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. I'm sure that helps you feel better about yourself.

Who hasn't been using logic, data, and facts?

Sorry you failed history and have had be taught some things about socialism. It's not our fault you are willing to be ignorant.

THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT HEALTH CARE COSTS WILL BE LOWER.

*sigh* No, child, it doesn't. The White House says healthcare costs will be lower (conveniently after 2016, when Obama will be out of office and no longer accountable for his statements). And it backs up this assertion with nothing. Unless you're of the opinion that we should swallow whatever the White House says without question or investigation, this does not count as “evidence”.