The Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare

[RecycleMichael]

You are basically the type who fakes critical thinking with cuteness.

Do you really think I am cute?

OMG.

[Gaspar]

Do you really think I am cute?

OMG.

RM & Teatown sittin in a tree. . .

[RecycleMichael]

RM & Teatown sittin in a tree. . .

It better be a damn big tree.

[AquaMan]

http://tulsa.craigslist.org/apa/3075995382.html

[Hoss]

Bull....the federal building comment was a sarcastic commentary in retaliation for all the years of righties laying blame for such threats at the feet of liberals. You MP are the type of chicken smile that allows righties to run all over the progressives in this country. You are a loserman who fails to see how satire works. It was pure and simple gonzo journalism.   You are basically the type who fakes critical thinking with cuteness. I guess you can't always have it your way. Do you control this forum? You evidently think you do....

Remind us how many different monikers you've used due to being banned?

[Red Arrow]

I seriously doubt GE is selling MRI machines to other countries at below cost.

I didn't say or try to imply they were.

[Ed W]

Bull....the federal building comment was a sarcastic commentary in retaliation for all the years of righties laying blame for such threats at the feet of liberals. You MP are the type of chicken smile that allows righties to run all over the progressives in this country. You are a loserman who fails to see how satire works. It was pure and simple gonzo journalism.   You are basically the type who fakes critical thinking with cuteness. I guess you can't always have it your way. Do you control this forum? You evidently think you do....

Gosh, I step out for a couple of hours and look what happens!

Mark Twain wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."  That's clearly evident in today's rapid-fire news cycles where getting the scoop rates higher than getting it right.  Those of us on either side of the aisle can engage in finger-pointing, calling the other side a bunch of feckless liars, but is it really true that our opponents are willfully lying, or is it that our world views are so fundamentally different that we end up talking past each other?  It's like using the same words, but those words have different meanings.

I work with dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.  That's merely a fact of life here in Oklahoma.  Some are capable of honest discussions on politics, religion, and assorted controversies, but others cannot get past the talking points they heard on talk radio that morning.  They're angry and fearful around a host of subjects, a trait they share with some on the left.  We're not an "organized political party" after all, if Will Rogers is to be believed.

It's a truism, however, that frightened people are easily mislead.  When faced with a threat, the American people have always supported our political leaders.  That could be attributed to patriotism if we're high-minded about it, but I think there's a substantial amount of gut-wrenching fear on the personal level.  What I find objectionable is any attempt to augment that fear as a tool for a political agenda.

"We are not descended from fearful men." Edward R. Murrow said that at the height of the Cold War and our descent into McCarthyism.  It's a good idea to keep in mind that those who promote fear do so with an objective in mind.

[nathanm]

I didn't say or try to imply they were.

Sorry, I thought the "do our high costs subsidize the rest of the world" question implied otherwise. It does definitely subsidize someone, but it's probably mainly executives of medical device manufacturers. (and possibly shareholders, if they're one of the few [large] companies with functional corporate governance)

[Red Arrow]

Sorry, I thought the "do our high costs subsidize the rest of the world" question implied otherwise. It does definitely subsidize someone, but it's probably mainly executives of medical device manufacturers. (and possibly shareholders, if they're one of the few [large] companies with functional corporate governance)

Please note that "I didn't say or try to imply they were." applies only to the "I seriously doubt GE is selling MRI machines to other countries at below cost." part of your post.  I didn't quote the rest of your post.

Subsidize?  I guess we could play semantics.  I was noting that as an overall wealthy nation we are paying our fair share.  We can (or at least used to be able to) afford the higher costs so that the poorer nations don't have to pay a disproportionate amount of their GDP/GDI/wealth.....  for medical care.

[nathanm]

I hate to get into a word parsing game, but I'm not sure how other countries could be receiving benefit in the form of more reasonable prices from our excess spending unless goods are being sold to them below cost. If they're paying the full cost of their MRI machines, we're not subsidizing them. (beyond the implicit subsidy inherent in conducting basic research that is openly published, anyway, but that's almost exclusively government and charitable spending, not private spending)

The fact that we pay more than others does not suggest that it is our fair share or that equitable distribution of costs is even a consideration in the prices we pay. Perhaps your suggestion is true, but nothing you've written supports that contention. Even other equivalently wealthy nations pay far less than we do.

I suspect the WHO and others do occasionally buy expensive medical equipment for poorer countries, but I don't see how that should keep the prices people pay for unrelated services low. Across the board we pay more. It doesn't matter if it's a hip replacement, setting a broken bone, a simple strep test, or anything else. We (or our insurance companies) pay more. Obviously, the most expensive procedures here are the ones that have the most eye popping price differential, but it's there in every procedure I've seen numbers for.

If it were just that we used more care or that we used more advanced machinery the whole thing wouldn't be so infuriating.

[Red Arrow]

I hate to get into a word parsing game, but I'm not sure how other countries could be receiving benefit in the form of more reasonable prices from our excess spending unless goods are being sold to them below cost. If they're paying the full cost of their MRI machines, we're not subsidizing them.

Price on ability to pay does not require a selling at a loss to the less fortunate.  Think about it.  I'm sure you can figure it out.

[nathanm]

Price on ability to pay does not require a selling at a loss to the less fortunate.  Think about it.  I'm sure you can figure it out.

I wouldn't disagree but for the extremely large price disparity.

[Red Arrow]

I wouldn't disagree but for the extremely large price disparity.

I think we can agree on the largeness of the disparity.

[nathanm]

Apparently, Roberts switched sides sometime after oral arguments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-3460_162-57464549.html

(print link, so it will pop up a print dialog)

[carltonplace]

I guess a lot of people are mispelling "ACT" on their tweets.