The only ones evoking victimhood here are desperate RIGHT-WINGERS, why is that?

Don't forget people who actually ARE victims... his "rational" idea might put their being able to afford required medical care to an end as well.

I fail to comprehend the meaning of your sentence.
(I'm not even certain that it is a complete sentence.)

"The only ones evoking victimhood here are desperate RIGHT-WINGERS, why is that?"

Huh, I would suggest that the very success and future of the left wingers depends on creating and maintaining the cult of victimhood. Conservatives just know this and you seem to get defensive when it gets pointed out.

I just don't see anyone on the left crying victimhood. What I see is RIGHT-WINGERS making such baseless accusations; this is part of the reason why the divide between parties is so hopelessly irreparable.

RIGHT-WINGERS need to stop clouding-up things and fight to make the America they claim to love a better place.

"I just don't see anyone on the left crying victimhood"

It is not the conservatives in this country wanting "hate crime" laws. It is not the conservatives in this country wanting equal results laws and policies such as tax redistribution. The policy of liberals/ statists depends on the illusion that people cannot do it without government re-arranging the field not for equal opportunity- we all have that, but equal results.

"he's proposing we give tax-payer funded money to accounts that will be controlled by brokers, banks and CFAs who will then make their own money off it at no personal risk to them (but at much personal risk to the individual). If the brokers/banks/CFAs then screw over the accounts, still making $$ off them for themselves throughout, to the point that the individual doesn't have enough to cover needs?"

No. He didn't say anything about that. There are no brokers/banks/CFAs. He simply suggested the idea of an HSA. You made up the rest.

Bullshit. Your reply indicates one of two things: 1) you're making up a last-minute argument with false information, or 2) you don't know jackshit about the real world.

Do you know what an HSA is? Do you know how the funds in HSAs are kept, and how they're used when its holder is not exhausting it from medical expenses? Do you think the money put into an HSA is tossed into some cardboard box and locked into a safe?

A better question, though, is DO YOU THINK WE'RE STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENT?

"Bullshit. Your reply indicates one of two things: 1) you're making up a last-minute argument with false information, or 2) you don't know jackshit about the real world."

1) I haven't made up anything. You completely took his suggestion and contorted it beyond recognition.

2) Not so. I don't intentionally twist people's words beyond recognition

"Do you know what an HSA is? Do you know how the funds in HSAs are kept, and how they're used when its holder is not exhausting it from medical expenses? Do you think the money put into an HSA is tossed into some cardboard box and locked into a safe?"

In fact I do. Yes, the money does technically go into a bank. But that does *not* mean some brokers/banks/CFAs are screwing with it. It's a *savings* account. It's *not* stock, it's *not* a portfolio, it's *not* an investment of any kind. So do you actually bury your money in a chest in your backyard cause you don't trust banks? =)

Hey, 12 year old Culdee, *what do you think banks do with money in savings accounts?* They do the same --- and a whole lot more without oversight -- with HSAs.
They are in the same class of holding institution IRAs -- which are invested by the banks at their own whim. And who's making the money off your money that you put in your HSA? *The bank, its agents, its CFAs, and the broker that sold it to them.*

And just like IRAs, they are not required to be with financial insurance/FDIC. So when the funds that your HSA is invested in go bust, so does your HSA.

Add in the fact that HSAs were only created with purpose of covering uninsured expenses of those already with insurance, and now you'll have to explain how this add-on insurance can somehow be used in place of insurance....

You must be aware that "Marxian" and
"plutocratic" are mutually exclusive. Yet,
you use them in such a way as to suggest
that they are compatible.

I'm troubled by language such as "screw over",
"sucker", "screwing over", "Get your ass out of
the country, you idiots", "sucking up to the same
shit", "you commie-sucking ass." These phrases
mean nothing to me, except insofar as they reflect
your limited use of the language of debate and
political argument.

I do wonder if you know what you're trying to
communicate since your thoughts (as reflected
in language) are so confused.

Here's another comment that begs clarification
in terms of the ambiguity of "he's proposing", i.e. Who?
Language such as "screw over" also mar any intent that
you have had in advancing a political debate. Again,
I must ask, what are you trying to communicate?

You seem to have had the same trouble that I did
with the comment of "culdee", but you at least
provided a couple of options that afforded clarity.
Your "Bullshit" may not have been acceptable in
formal debate, but it does communicate your
frustration in the lack of clarity that you describe
from Culdee. (I had the same problem.)

More needless "bullshit", although that appears to
be normative here, apparently accepted as OK by
those who moderate the site.

Your debate strategy is weakened tremendously
by posing questions (as though you're a prosecutor),
which even in a courtroom would be called "argumentative"
or badgering. I see no plausible reason why you'd do that
to a peer with whom you're entering into mere discussion
on a blog-site.

I do wonder if you fail to recognize that your tactic of misdirection is quite apparent, and quite well known in such emporiums.

It's also just another trolling tactic --- when you can't refute the argument, misdirect it with irrelevant criticism.

why dont you just shout "GIT ER DUN!"

"Language such as "screw over" also mar any intent that
you have had in advancing a political debate."

Exactly. It's a very ambiguous term that implies the person using it is too lazy/uniformed to connect all the dots, so they use the blanket term "screw over". I didn't use it; I was quoting Regroce.

"Your debate strategy is weakened tremendously
by posing questions (as though you're a prosecutor),
which even in a courtroom would be called "argumentative"
or badgering."

Saskatchewan, I sure hope you decide to stay around. Current.com desperately needs someone such as yourself to bring some civility back.

Bravo culdee ! (applause) Now to FOLLOW ! Nie?

Banking oversight/regulation doesn't have anything to do with this. You have the choice of what bank to use. Use a locally owned bank. If banks didn't use their funds to invest they wouldn't be able to stay in business. That is the only way they can stay in business, Jr.

so small banks can only stay in business if we let them fluck around with money intended to be the determinant of our health status, is that what you're saying now. "Oh, those poor banks! We need to let them screw with our health!"

....at least you've come clean about what your true argument is --- you don't want HSAs for the health of people, you want HSAs for the health of BANKS.

You have no idea how banks are run do you? Ok don't let HSA's get run by banks. Instead you need to keep the money yourself. If you loose it and then need to go to the doctor then tough. Before you post a bonehead reply about banks, research how they opperate and stay in business. If banks weren't allowed to invest our money then they would make no money and then they would go out of business and you would have to keep your money safe yourself in your matress or whatever. If you don't like banks then don't keep your money in them. I use local small banks because they are less of a crook then banks like chase.

Ah, another misdirective opportunity explored by grhd. "Those poor banks! sniffle They won't make any money!" Sure --- forget the fact that they already make $$; you just want to give them this particular funding, and even though it leaves our access to healthcare at risk, because apparently you hold them of higher status than us individually.

And here's your other plutocratic plea (which I hear with a Ron Paul accent) -- "If you lose it and then need to go to the doctor then tough." Yeah, let those sickly children attend school with ours, also with immune systems yet to fully develop, so we can just spread epidemics around.

In summary back to this subject: HSAs in replacement of the ACA **SUCKS** --- it's the same basis as privatization of Social Security.

I never said any of that. I was just trying to inform a uneducated libtard how banks work. Personally I keep as much of my money i can out of banks. But apparently you think our government is safer to keep our money then banks. You must be brain dead. The rest of your post is just some crazy libtard talking point that couldn't be further from the truth.

"they would make no money" Yeah, you never said that.

And you also can't challenge the validity of any other comment I've made on this thread, either, so you're just taking that closing angle of "crazy libtard" --- like *that* does your losing argument of false information any good.

You don't know what your talking about. This forum is for grown ups.

Ah, quoting the RNC Troll Handbook, I see. From page 12: "When someone posts factual data that contrasts with your argument, and to which can you provide absolutely no challenge, immediately attempt to spew childish insults in the hopes that a) you'll dissuade response, and b) other people reading those comments are unintelligent enough to believe you."

It gets better, too! He credits his interest in medicine to have developed from the free medical care he received as a child!!!

Ever hear of Charity?

Believe it or not the Charities, Churches and the like, provide more free services than the state.

Unlike you, Not everyone has the government as their god.

Bullshit. In fact, I know someone who was told he needed surgery for an arterial problem -- but was screwed over by his insurance company who told him it wasn't covered in his plan. He went to a medical facility known as Charity Hospital - both privately and publicly funded, too - and he was told he had 90 days to live without surgery.

HE WAS THEN SENT AWAY. It would only do the needed surgery if it was in need *AT THE MOMENT* (just like they can fix a broken arm or tend a gunshot wound, but provide no preventive medicine whatsoever.) THE MAN DIED 10 WEEKS LATER because he was REFUSED CHARITABLE MEDICAL CARE TO SAVE HIS LIFE.

I've never read The RNC Troll Handbook
(didn't know it existed), but it doesn't offer
standards for mature or acceptable debate if
it is, in fact, as you describe. If the language in
that handbook is as you apparently quote, an
editor's precision is definitely required.

I am in the medical field, so I'll say that I'm
shocked and disappoint about "bullshit" as
the beginning of a debate. To other readers,
we don't talk like that in my professional field.
In fact, I'd venture to say that most of these
nasty writers on this topic are definitely not
medical professionals.

Where are your facts?

His plan includes tax payer funded HSA's for people that can't afford to fund their own. He states that this method would drastically drop the amount that the US spends on health care.

I call B.S. on your story.

Get your sympathy flowers ready --- I'll bring you to his grave site.

Ok. I won't hold my breath though.

It would drastically drop the amount that those US citizens would HAVE to spend on their own healthcare. Those HSAs would be used as interest earners by the banking institutions and its agents, just like all such accounts are; the account holders get less than the institutions/agents. They would also be subject to annual fees ---- and subject to market fluctuation, which we ("we" being "intelligent people") know to have 14 year fluctuation cycles. And they're uninsured, unlike other FDIC accounts. Need surgery at the wrong time, you're left with ....what? And all while the banks/agents get their money at no risk.

This is the equivalent of Social Security privatization.

Look at obama and romneys top campaign contributers. They're practically the same companies. Again look at McCain and obamas contributers in 2008. Even more of them are the same. This two party system is designed to only benefit the elite. Obama isn't here to help anyone but the elite. Yet most libs are to dumb to see this. We need to get rid of the two party system.

You, too, are quite inept as a debate
about medical issues. If your President has
disappointed you, that's because you have
limited understanding of health care delivery
in your country--and what it should be. For you
to use words such as "fools", "stupid", or to
call your President a "fool" because he's trying
to implement health care for most citizens
strikes me as extremely immature. I have no
idea what you mean when you say "start
everyone who is still working on the new plan".
What does that mean?

I couldn't care less what you think if I made the effort. No, I am not a health care professional, neither is the president.

Atti-tood-eus-itus per HICK-ski?

What the idea of you having to pay your fair share in taxes? Or the idea of cost effective and responsible medical accounts? Or are you just that brainwashed by oblabla?

Oddly enough, I've been paying my taxes for about 1/2 a century now.

No, what disturbed my brain enough to cause a autonomous visceral reaction is the good Dr. obviously has his and and expects everyone else to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," mostly so he can keep getting his no matter what it costs the people.

Why would a man who actually cares about people push for a plan that will only apply to the rich?

That plan applies to everyone. Plus the redistribution and higher taxes obama wants is not going to benefit anyone but his elite supporters and friends. You're just to brainwashed to see it.

"pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" Why wouldn't he? He pulled his self up from his own bootstraps. Check out his history before you blab your mouth.

Supportive parents, Quotas, strong civil rights laws and enforcement --- all that should have been there and would still be except Uncle Raygun killed as many of these programs as he could get away with.,

This guy is a genius. I've always said that our tax and medical systems need to be fair and simple. No loop holes and no proggresive rate crap.

Who knows. He didn't spell out the whole plan. He was just using his intellegence to show Obama how to do his job. Obamacare is going to drive this country into further dept and our tax system is too complex with to many loopholes and the proggresive tax rates just punish success.

"The guy is a dumbass--"

This "dumbass" is a pediatric neurosurgeon and from what I understand, board certified in other specialties as well. His pediatric specialty is separating Siamese twins. He does a lot of this in Africa for no cost. His mother had a third grade education and worked three jobs as a domestic to stay off welfare. She refused to let this doctor and his siblings use excuses to explain why they did not/could not do something. To compound the problems liberals have with this man, he is black. Really shoots down your model now doesn't it.
I have been reading your posts for a while here and mostly just shake my head at the nonsensical replies that emanate from your keyboard. The quote above is another one. You have vanquished your credibility jack. Liberals need to embrace this mans lifestyle rather than the pathetic venue of victimhood that condemns people to a lifetime of servitude they currently espouse.

Unless he can propose a detailed plan ( I support anything that stops the money bleeding) he is just another blowhard.

Why? Because his plan didn't give you something for free?

Paratus I invite everyone to read you posts then decided the credibility issue. To be honest from what I see on the threads I saw no need to look any further into yours.

I never questioned his medical skills and I certainly applaud his upbringing but to try to use him as the universal model for people in public assistance is an insult to tax payers who may have fallen on hard times and need a boost; that's what RIGHT-WINGERS neglect to realize. 



Since you opened the door all this hatred aimed at those on welfare stems from RIGHT-WINGER bigotry you can try to mask it by shifting the blame but it's always transparent. 

 BTW---I'm not here seeking credibility; this is an informal forum not a national debate team. In this regard, from what he so incompletely describes, makes Dr. Benjamin Carson a dumbass doubly so for RIGHT-WINGERS.

The something for nothing mentality is strictly a RIGHT-WINGER construct. His plan did not prose any real solutions---if you like castles in the air then fine but I would expect a notable like Carson would at least be prepared if he planed to spew.

Yeah, I let a neurosurgeon do my taxes. And I let a mechanic write my prescriptions, too.

Yet you'll let a politician come up with a tax plan.

It is constructed from the actions of something for nothing, pathetic, lazy left wingers.

I'll let a politician come up with a tax plan capable of doing what it's supposed to do. We used to have one like that, too.

I won't let a used car salesman (Boehner) or plutocrat (Paul) throw our society back 7 centuries to some serfdom that clings to Marxian Economics while calling everyone who challenges it "commie" or "shoshulish!!!" --

At least, Dr. Carson is a *real* doctor. That sure beats the occasional "dumbass" left wingers *out there* who'll put 'MD' next to his or her moniker name when they're not even a REAL doctor.

Hey - HAHA ! I nu wot you mean in-doob-idublee ! Even trolls do it !
M.D. Medical Diety LOL hark !

LOL -- Hilarious!

You are so correct that this is an "informal" forum.
Very informal with apparent limited understanding.
You should be lauded for reference to the uninsured
and disadvantage--which constitutes both a moral
and fiscal problem in your country. I sense your
frustration with the level of discussion.

Your accusation is vague and vulgar, yet seems
specifically aimed at those of an opposing political
affiliation. If you do have specific instances of
fraudulent use of medical credentials, you should
report them to the appropriate credentialing bodies
in your state rather than to use them on a political
forum in such a way as to increase suspicion.

What is humorous about needlessly creating suspicions?

Ya-hey, at least sumebody laff at my humor. HIGH-larious. Tak, it is !

To restate your post:

"The guy is a dumbass"

Don't know where you see "hatred" unless y ou are looking at your own post.

What is your chosen profession? Does it lend itself to credibility in economics, taxes, politics or government? Are you suggesting that a doctor cannot have an opinion on these things? We have a community organizer with no experience in business making policy decisions governing business. It is a fact that he is incompetent at it. I would bet that you are throwing rocks at the messenger just because you don't like the message.

a doctor can have an opinion on anything he wants, just like all of us can. *That does not make it authoritative on any of those subjects.*

I also stated,

"In this regard, from what he so incompletely describes, makes Dr. Benjamin Carson a dumbass doubly so for RIGHT-WINGERS."

Your reply just proves my point.

This comment by Matka is a direct attempt to antagonize me using my name, why is this allowed? posting other users Twitter accounts without me doing so first then mocking it should be against the TOS, moderators take action against her violation please.

Why is is allowed when u and others use my name to antagonize directly?

Want a tissue? Dry your eyes and go upstairs to cry to your mom.

"Moderators take action against her violation please"!!!

All aboard in defense of Current TOS!!!

You're the last person in the world who would ever dream of antagonizing another commenter, aren't you?

You would never, ever mention anyone's name (even in passing, or obliquely) nor would you ever think of posting any links at all to other websites where they might be active, would you?

And you, dear sweet jackhole, would never, ever go so far as to make up little videos mocking them, would you?

Some people do things like that sometimes here. Tsk, tsk.

""Moderators take action ...please"!!!

Well, thank goodness the Current community has such paragons of virtue to keep everything shipshape and bristol fashion.

.For some reason, your comment reminds me of the guy in this scene from Mary Poppins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFC58QVycgQ

I just KNEW that I recognised that av from somewhere (must've been the hat that confused me... the bowler suits you so much better)

;-)

[ADDS: for "British Bank" just substitute "American Website"]

gr, I will as soon as you move out of yours basement Jr.

Really where? which thread? This is a falsehood. I have asked you to leave me alone and I do so again publicly. I find no value in your comments and just roll over them show me the same curtesy and ignore mine as they certainly DO NOT mention you, other than to ask the mods to remove the comment mentioning my twitter account.

BTW---deleting the comment does little as I have a screenshot.

So what ? I don't even know what your grousin' about.

Hahahahaha. That repeat coment proves how young and inmature you are. I guess you really do live in your parents basement. I was just joking earlier.

Dude pull my finger.

I, along with many conservatives, would not only for him, but I would campaign for him as well.

Wow a a fellow conservative on current...welcome. Alot come, but most go as the cyber bullying from some of the members crosses the line. I stay for there are some that nyou can have a civil debate with.
I have been here from almost the begining. I found the site in doing research for proof thatn Al Gore is in fact a hypocrite....by the recent sale of current, that research is no longer needed.
But back to Dr. Carson...somewhere...in the bowels of a Liberal think tank...people are working desperatly to make a case that Dr. Carson is a racist and is forefront in the war on women.

WE could use someone like this man in the office but that would be medicines loss. It would certainly be a 180 degree change from what we have now.

"Wow a a fellow conservative on current...welcome."

Second that.

what amazed me is he, in in a couple minutes, articulated at least my view of health care and like, better than most of our canidates could do in months of campaigning.

We could only wish. Untill we get rid of our corrupt media and corrupt political party system, we will never have someone that is intelligent and really wants to sovle our problems.

But I would vote for him if he was on a ballot. I still believe that with our electorial college system there is to much room for the elections to be fixed. Everyone could vote for him but I'm sure that false voting numbers would be made up so the candidate thats supposed to be elected will still be elected.

Third that. I welcome ALL different political points of view.

Welcome to Current. Be forwarned that you (we) are outnumbered around 5 to 1. Good luck to you. =)