And who the hell are you to deem it so? It takes but a few sentence to repudiate what was said but are just another useless moron with a balloon or rather a baloney head.

Just cuz I say so.  I read what you wrote, mostly garbage.

 Saying so does not make it so. I hardly see anything of substance from you except the usual racist bilge. Use that damn brain you pretend to have and clarify what it is you claim you have.

Banna, when I read your post, it's so scatter-brained filled with irrational rants, lack any coherency, one don't know where to start.  You are all over the place, like a scatter-shot in the dark, or a bat in the day, not knowing exactly what you aiming at.  It reminds me of my kids toy box which, with all the little useful, yet useless lose pieces, just dump it in the garbage and start over.  That's why I call it "garbage".

 Have the courage to point to its deficiencies rather than insist it is. I find you a racist and a pompous ass and that is easy to clarify given the crap above.

 

It came from an erroneous assumption that non whites consume more of the welfare allocation to claims you are a grand economics ( no evidence to back it up) to what is farm subsidy and now your grandstanding that you have a big head. Go placate yourself that you are bright if that is what will make you feel good. Racists come with one foot in the moron category and that is a fact jack.

You need both your brain and eyes examined.  Show me where did I say non-whites consume more welfare benefits!!  Show me!!!!!

baseman

Member

 1 day ago

 

Originally Posted by Kari:

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Red herring, most people, both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients.

You jackass, read the two and see what they say.  Like the piwari got to your brain.

 

 

I see that your racist compulsions not only over ride good sense they over rides your ability to be forthcoming.

 

 

Let me reiterate; these are your words:"both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients."

Unless the above is not what you intended, it most surely point to your belief that"non whites are a larger share of the welfare benefactors".

Well they are not. White people represent the larger hard number of people on welfare.

 

Get a grip of your bias and accept your statement was wrong or it was not what you intended to say.

Jackass, I said what I said in RED, not what you wrote.  You clown.  Get over your piwari overdose, go take some cool-aid.

This is a monument to your duplicitousness.  If what you say is in red then you affirm what I corrected you on;  more whites are on welfare and they consume more of the welfare allocations and not as you said in red.

 

The rest of your post simply speak to vestiges of a cruel and injurious past. You are to be excused. Some find it hard to overcome a legacy of 6 millennium as the footstool of others hence the latent mean spirited and spiteful disposition

It amazes me that a country as rich as America cannot pay for its people health care, housing and education.  That is pure capitalism for you.  Brutal.  Now that it does not have another economic system to compete with it will only get more brutal in the future.

it is not that they cannot pay. It is because the American health care system in place is broken and more per capita is spend in America than any other nation and  some 50 million were left out. Insurers, big pharma and many doctors are the leeches.

 

Obama did not correct this even if he did bring more people into the system by law. He simply made a deal with the devil to get more covered and in the future someone will have to address the greed of the pharmaceutical companies especially.

 

An amazing statistic is that as many as a third of those who die from health complications die  from the drugs given them rather than from their diseased condition! Big Pharma has corrupted the delivery of medicine consequently your doctor will always prescribe a pill for whatever malady they presume you have rather than fully investigate the cause.

S-born, I agree with you in principle except the target of big Pharma and big insurance.  You have to understand the cost structure before you come to such a conclusion.  Secondly, bear in mind, almost 50% of all dispensed drugs are now "branded generics" meaning most are not from the inventories of big pharma, but small generics in the US, India, Israel, China and East European.

 

StormB, the costs structure of healthcare is 12% drugs (all Pharma), 6% Diagnostic testing, 35% personnel (Drs, Nurses, hospital staff, technicians. home health, etc, etc, 30% equipment and infrastructune (all what you see), and all others.

 

You are correct in principle, but to solve the issue you have to get behind the big numbers and the drivers, not the small figures, though eventually all must me addressed.

Shouldn't amaze you. The US system has always been to kick it's elderly, sick, weak and poor. The role models are the rich and famous. The average American would spend more money on a pet dog than feed a homeless poor. In the greatest country people are still sleeping under bridges and on sidewalks. It's what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you. Make sure you pay your taxes!

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, the euphemistically characterized Obamacare) is a vehicle to bring 30 to 40 million uninsured Americans into the Health Insurance system. The newly insured will demand more health care services (over and above the Emergency Room (ER) care) than when they were uninsured, that will spur economic activity.

 

It takes time to train a family physician or nurse practitioner, but, as Jonathan Gruber,  a Professor of Economics at MIT and a technical consultant to the Obama Administration during the development of the ACA, says:

 

It doesn’t take much time to train the assistants and technicians (and related support staff) who can fill much of this need. In many cases, these are precisely the sort of medium-skill jobs that our economy desperately needs—and that the health care sector has already been providing, even during the recession.

 

When families who are the newly hired gets such economic security, they will have more confidence to increased consumption spending.

Professor Gruber continues:

With the security provided by health insurance, they can free that money up for consumption that is much more valuable to them. When the federal government expanded Medicaid in the 1990s, my own research has shown, the newly insured significantly increased their spending on consumer goods. More purchases of consumer goods will provide short-run stimulation to the economy and more hiring.

But what about the financing—and all those “job-killing taxes”? The law does indeed apply new taxes, primarily on three sources. The first is on parts of the health care industry—medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and insurance. But these taxes are effectively asking those sectors to “kick back” some of the revenue increases that the law will provide, by creating so many new paying customers. On net, these sectors are major winners from health care reform.

The second is an extension of the Medicare tax on the wealthiest Americans, those with incomes above $250,000 per year. There is now a large body of literature examining the impact of tax changes on the highest income taxpayers. This literature finds that those taxpayers will avoid some of those taxes by re-categorizing their incomes in ways that minimize taxes. But there is no evidence that they will actually work less hard, invest less, or do anything which reduces their “real contribution” to the economy.

The third major tax provision is a “free rider penalty” of $2000 to $3000 (per employee) on medium and large businesses that fail to provide workers with affordable coverage, forcing those workers to get subsidized insurance via the new insurance exchanges. This will indeed impose a new financial burden on businesses that, unlike competitors, do not pay their fair share of health insurance costs. But the overall impact is likely to be very small. Only 2.6 percent of businesses will pay this assessment, and the revenue raised will amount to 1.4 percent of existing spending on health insurance in the U.S.—and only 0.1 percent of wages. The amount of stimulative spending that is put in place by the ACA is sixteen times as large as the revenues raised by this equity assessment. 

Yea, the 18 new taxes.  Hooray, how innovative.

The problem is Obamacare does not address this problem.

 

The problem is that what the GOP suggest is even worse as it will ensure that even more people will not have access to healthcare.

 

The problem is that both sides define it as a health insurance problem, and not as an overall healthcare problem.  Any one who has been in ER and has noted that most of the people there are for non emergency head aches and stomach aches, better seen in a doctor's office will no why. ER is expensive and the delivery6 pathetically bad as it is not set up top deliver primary care.

 

A critical problem that this country faces is an emerging shortage of primary care doctors, as any one who tried to get a quick appointment with one of them will find it.  Normally at least 1 week and more in some areas.  And this is before the transfer of those who only access care in the ER begin to get it in doctor's offices!!!!

I am amused by people who think tehs einsurance exchanges will deliver lower costs.  Will these exchanges impact on costs imposed by hospitals, doctors, pharma, medical equipment suppliers, labs, etc?  No.  Already certian states, maybe the Feds, have imposed ratios on the insurance companie sthat have to be paid out (I beleive at least 80% of the premium).  Every day we hear Wellpoint or United Healthcare, or some other mega insurer acquiring yet another company.

 

So how will these exchanges be different.  Why will suggesting that the only cost factor is that imposed by the insurers solve the problem?

 

There needs to be an honest discussion involving ALL the stakeholders.  I dont expect it given the lobbying of the various interest groups and the politrics of BOTH the Democrats and the GOP on this topic. 

 

Obamacare only automatically includes those who are excluded because of prior conditions and people between 22-26 who were previously not covered by their parents.  Those who cant afford it still will not be able to.

 

How many middle class people can afford to buy insurance for $2,000/month on top of their need to save to educate their kids and prepare for their retirment?  Few.  If their employers dont provide it they are SOL.

Unfortunately the demagogues have the airwaves.  The real price tag of Obamacare kicks in 2015-2018.  It will be somebody else's mess.  By then Kari would have changed his handle.

The demagoguery of the GOP is much worse than that of teh Democrats.  At least the latter have the head in the right place, seeking to resolve the disgraceful fact that the USA, the richest nation, treats its poor muich worse than does an impoverished country like Guyana.  Do you know that poor Guyanese have more access to healthcare than a poor Americans who doesnt qualify for Medicare.  They have no access to the pre and post natal care that Guyanese have, as abysmal as that might be.

 

The GOP want even more people tgo be uninsured by forcing companies to droip coverage for their employees, and allowing health insurance comjpnaies to cherry pick who they will ensure...of course allowing people to buy low quality coverage under the mistaken notion that it is cheap so must meet their needs.

 

I advocate a revamping of Obamacare. Not its removal.

Well, guess the PPP ain't that bad after all.  You see, you have to stop putting down the PPP so much.  With all their short comings, they have done good in some areas.  And they did it while fighting off the guns of Buxton.

 

I agree with you on Obamacare, it need a stronger module looking into overall cost structure and it will be ok.

The cheers and jeers goes both ways. Mitt Romney will pick up steam when he named his (VP) running mate.

I only cite Guyana as an example because we are one of the poorest CARICOM nations.  Not because the PPP has done such a good job, because they havent.

 

The legacy of our fight against colonialism throughout the British colonies, combined with post WWII attitudes within the UK itself, has meant that a system of low cost clinics became part of health care delivery throughout the English speaking Caribbean.

 

The PPP didnt fight off any Buxton guns. They encouraged them to scare Indians back to them.  As one can see no major person has ever been arrested, nor has there been any serious inquiry into what happened.

When Romney provides details about what he really plans to do lots opf you all are going to be shocked.

 

We know what Obama is all about.  Do you know3 anything about Romney.  In fact does Romney know anything about Romney when we consider that the "tax" he thought was good for MA is now suddenly so bad.  Obamacare is Romneycare so why is he so against it?

OK, point taken, but you DID say poor Guyanese have better access to healthcare than poor Americans.  Now, isn't that admirable as a comparison of the poorest vs the richest.

 

You see my man Caribj, we could become friends when we become objective.  Kudos for you to at least being truthful.

No it says that the poor in the USA are in a bad way if the poorest country in the English speaking Caribbean offers better access to its poor.  Now imagine if we were talking about places like Barbados and Antigua!!!!

Ok Carib, I agree with you.  If Guyana had the per capita income of these places, then we would expect better than they have today.  But putting that aside and not getting into whether Guyana should or shouldn't ahve been richer, the fact is, for the situation, the GoG seems to be doing a better job than the USofA, by your own assertions.

 

Caribj, I have a sneaky suspicion that you are T-ing up to join the PPP.  You have been getting less and less critical of the PPP since last election.  The pull of milk is just too tempting.

i wonder how you can accept the fact that two pieces of coral peeping out of the Atlantic Ocean offer a better life to its residents, INCLUSIVE OF THE THOUSANDS of Guyanese who live there.  And Guyana, a country with ample gold, and other commodities currently much in demand is unable to

 

20 years of PPP rule and debt forgiveness, freeing it from the mess that Burnham left Guyana in, and yet we still trail coral reefs and volcanic peaks usiong any statistical measurement you wish.

 

Guyana ought to have the second highest GDP per capita (NOMINAL GDP that is), behind T&T. Yet we are glad because at least we are ahead of Haiti, even though every one else beats us.

 

I have not opined about Ramotar much since last election, because unlike you, I attempt to be objective.  Give the man some time before we condemn him for being as bad as Jagdeo.    Having said that his current behavior and the sluaghter in Linden shows no change.

 

If Bloomberg could have avoided killing Occupy WS protesters surely Rohee could have figured out a way.

Caribj, I'm not doubting Guyana should be ahead of where it is today.  But, as you stated, even with that, the poor of Guyana has better access to medical care than the richest country, the USA.

 

I agree on the protest issue.  Surely, I don't condone the police action against the protestors however, we don't have all the facts.  At no time did Occupy WS ever threatened life, limb, private and public property.  I still believe rogue elements in the security forces tried to incite violence.  But before we guess, let's wait for an independent hearing.

 

 

We dopnt have all the facts which is why I am not getting into whether or not Lindeners are right to protest or not. Whats is key is they HAVE the right to protest and the police should have made arrangements to facilitate this. 

 

Whether Lindeners should or should not pay more is not a topic that I will debate.  What I wil condemn is the slaughter of 4 black people, because it comes after other attacks on the rights of blacks to protest...we reecall when black old ladies were assaulted jst after the election by the PPP.

 

 

How can one say that Burnham was a brute when Ramotar engagte sin similar savagery against those who he disagrees with. And it matters not whether he ordered it or not. He has not condemned it.  Nor has he tried to find some way of mediating this issue.

 

Black blood is cheap by a PPP enraged that it was  rejected by them.  Even you must see this.

presaged by his substantive SILENCE re Parvati's table-setting Chronicle editorial!

This is all within the same context. One week the PPP screams that blacks are savages.....and they need not tell me that they didnt know that such racist dogma was going top be printed and so preventing it.

 

The next 4 blacks slaughtered.

 

Ramotar good going.  I know you are doing your best to enscourage widespread black unrest so you can scream to Indians "I told you so".  Pray that you dont succeed.