tanvat
(member)
09/17/07 05:00 PM
Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

This blows. Clinton's health plan would require - that's right REQUIRE - all people to carry health insurance. If you read the article, you'll see she attempts to analogize the health insurance mandate to automobile liability insurance. Clinton is smart, but it doesn't take a genius to see that this is a flawed analogy. We are required to get auto insurance so that if we hit someone else and hurt them or damage their property, we have a way of insuring that the other person isn't screwed if someone can't pay up - so, auto insurance is for the benefit of the person you hurt by your negligence. But health insurance is - or should be - my decision. And what if I'm rich and think I don't need it for myself? Well, if I'm not rich enough, then I get wiped out - my problem. What if I'm poor and can't really afford what they are mandating? My guess is that someone making $8.00 an hr. is going to be able to afford insurance that doesn't cover much and has such a high deductible that, for them, it'd be next to useless - but, I suppose that is where the $110 billion in subsidies will come in - of course, w/ $110 billion in subsidies and a requirement that everyone have insurance, my guess is that aggregate insurance premiums will go up by about, well $110 billion and then some - this has the potential to get REAL costly on top of the already ominous liabilities in SS and Medicaid - the '08 choices are looking worse and worse every day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care


Hellbender
(member)
09/17/07 05:10 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I'm not familiar with it, but its suppose to be a plagiarized version of Massachusetts.
How would you view children's health care in your new found conservative view?


Ozark
(member)
09/17/07 05:27 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Yep, and in looking at it backwards - from the point of view of the health care industry - how in the WORLD could I get into a business where the government mandates that every American has to buy insurance to pay MY outrageous fees? What a racket!

A personal anecdote, and I know everyone's got 'em:

My Mom died this summer at age 93. She had been in a nursing home here in Ozark for a year. She got pneumonia and was transported by ambulance to a hospital in Springfield. It was a one-way 15 mile trip with no care needed from the paramedics, they just gave her a ride up there.

I handled her affairs, and when the bill came from the hospital ambulance company it was for $427.75. I called them and gave them her Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance information. They then billed the government and her insurance for $859.45!

A month later she got a bill that said the various insurances had paid $627.00 for the ambulance ride ($200 more than their original bill) and she still had to pay another $232.45. I called the ambulance service and told them she'd died, and they said "OK, they'd write it off".

Health care is a RACKET in this country - and if you think it's expensive now, just wait until the government's running it!


Hop
()
09/17/07 05:50 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

And I say again. Anytime the Government is involved in anything that is supposed to effect People's Well-Being has been a flop and actually hurts people.

Look at Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid... How Sound are any of those programs.


Sounds like a Repeat of Billary Spewing her Crap as She and Billy Bob did when he was in Office.

As far as Social Security.. Use it for what it was intended to be used for and dont dip into it anything else. It was intended to be used for a retirement Suppliment.

As far as Medicare use it for what it is used for to help provide health insurance for those that have worked thier entire lives that have paid into it and those that have conditions that dont allow them to have worked to pay into it.

Medicaid.. What a Joke. I see Many Many people everyday that walk into our ER that are dressed to the hilt and as matter of fact see folks that are in much better physical Shape than myself (Not Saying Much) walking in with a Red Card in hand Demanding to be treated like Royalty.

And Many of those folks speak no english and here freshly off the Bannna Boat. And the first place they go to is to the free hand-out stations.

With that being said. Billary is just spewing Campaign Crapola like Billy Bob did when he was Running for President.

If the Government has anymore hand in Healthcare eventually the Quality Healthcare will deminish as those with Socialized Med.

Imagine one of your loved one's walk into an ER with Abdominal Pain.. And it is not a life-threatening thing...And your Loved One Can Not get a Cat Scan sent home with pain meds if he or she is lucky....Six Months Later things for them really go sour. And it is discovered that he or she has Cancer that has now grown out of control and has Mets to other parts of thier body and they are now terminal...

Now just think if your loved one could have gotten a CT scan that could have caught it early.. Good chance it would have been treatable.

But due to Governement controlled Health Care the CT they needed would not have been put off for 6 Months.

Okay I'll Shut Up!


Hellbender
(member)
09/17/07 07:06 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I see nothing wrong with forcing people to have health insurance, it is just like auto insurance, accidents happen. You all know that people will be treated, and you know that some people use this, and you know that you pay for it.
As to government control, talk to some Canadians about social medicine. They can get any treatment there that we can get here, it just takes a few months or years longer to get it.

I think Hillary's plan might bite her in the ass, after all its a plan pushed by Romney and its obvious she's copying it. Think about it, how will she 'splain why it took her 14 years to come up with another plan, why does it look like another plan already in force??? Maybe some Dems will finally ask the big question, "What has she accomplished on her own, other than instigating criminal investigations?".


Ozark
(member)
09/17/07 07:40 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hop said:
Medicaid.. What a Joke.




Yep, and I hated to get my Mom on Medicaid when she had to go to a nursing home - but what else can you do?

My folks were good hard working people who never asked for any government assistance. When my Mom got so old, she got to the point we couldn't take care of her at home. Nobody but a multimillionaire could afford to pay what the nursing home, their doctor, and medications cost. When that happens, most any family is forced to go to Medicaid.

Medical costs are just outrageous - putting my Mom up in a 4-star hotel for a year would have been cheaper. What's going on is a massive transfer of tax money to the health care industry - and the more the government gets involved in it the more expensive it's going to be.


Whackattack
(member)
09/17/07 10:22 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Ozark just explained why Long Term Care Insurance is a necessity for some of you old forkers. You owe it to yourself to at least be educated about LTC.

I like mandating health insurance. My plan is even better than Hillary's though. I would make proof of insurance a requirement before anyone purchases an unnecessary item. Want a big screen TV? Show proof of insurance. Want a new car? Show proof of insurance. Want a new shotgun, boat, pack of cigs, 30 pack of beer, new house? Show proof of insurance.


Liberty
(member)
09/17/07 10:56 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

yes by all means let's piss away every fabric of liberty by having to show papers for everything we buy

Liberty
(member)
09/17/07 10:58 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

let's mandate more monopolistic behavior then everything will be great

Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 01:13 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Liberty said:
having to show papers for everything




That does ring a bell - I grew up on WWII movies:
-----------------
Gestapo: "Your papers, please."

"Ja."

"Your papers say you live in Dusseldorf."

"Ja."

"UND WHY ARE YOU IN MUNICH?"
------------------
We're kinda getting that way here, aren't we?


Liberty
(member)
09/18/07 04:15 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"UND WHY ARE YOU IN MUNICH?"

to buy a pack of cigarettes, as you can see I'm fully insured


Whackattack
(member)
09/18/07 03:42 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"to buy a pack of cigarettes, as you can see I'm fully insured"....Liberty

You have to show id to buy cigs why not show and insurance card. I also think you should have to return 20 cig butts to buy a pack of smokes to keep the damn things off our highways. I guess that's gestapo too.


If you like paying for others healthcare be my guest, I'd rather stupid ass people rearranging their priorities and paying for their own.

Most of the uninsured are by choice. The largest segment is 20-26 year old men. Now I guarantee you they aren't all disabled so they should be working and paying for their healthcare.


Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 05:42 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

whack - Are you an insurance agent?

By definition, the total premiums paid in to any insurance plan are going to be greater than the total claims the insurance company has to pay under that plan. The difference between those figures is the insurance company's profit, overhead, and expenses.

That means that in total, ANY insurance costs people more than just paying for whatever bad stuff happens. Insurance is a safety net for individuals, but it costs the whole insured group a lot more money than not having insurance.

Making more people buy health insurance means even more money will be spent on health care in this country. Some of the money will go to insurance company profits and overhead - and of course health care providers will charge even more for their services, too.

Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance are what screwed this deal up in the first place. You want health care costs to go DOWN? Good - pass a law doing away with Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance.

Doctors would soon have middle-class incomes again and all medical charges would have to go down to what the market would bear. Medical charges are so ridiculously high now because providers are cuttin' a fat hog in the ass with all the money they can get from government and insurance.


Liberty
(member)
09/18/07 07:04 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"You have to show id to buy cigs why not show and insurance card."--Whackattack

why not make them jump rope, then skip in place and throw in a few mandatory pushups?

Freedom is why, damn you want to be required to do a bunch of crap go to Cuba or China there you can be happy in knowing that everybody is dancing a proverbial cha-cha-cha just to ride a damn bike with a flat tire to go wait in line for some stale bread or a bag of rice.


Hellbender
(member)
09/18/07 07:19 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

pass a law doing away with Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance.





That would most likely raise prices and taxes. The large drop in population would put a bigger burden on the survivors.


Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 07:59 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
The large drop in population would put a bigger burden on the survivors.




Actually, I think it's the other way around.

Doctors in British Columbia went on strike for a few months, some years back. During that time, they did emergency trauma stuff only, no elective surgeries, no Dr. appointments, etc. Ya know what happened? The death rate in the entire province DROPPED by 2/3 during that time!

One of my sons-in-law is an M.D. His advice - "Stay away from doctors, those guys'll kill you".

I'm at an age now where I think I know more dead people than live people, which is kinda depressing. Looking back at all that - it was usually the treatment and not the disease that killed 'em.

Medicine, like the FBI and sex with blond-headed women, is 'way overrated.


Whackattack
(member)
09/18/07 08:45 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Ozark said:
whack - Are you an insurance agent.





No not an insurance agent.

How's an old fart like you gonna afford a titanium hip replacement, bypass, or a hover round without a little insurance help?

The HSA program that was introduced a few years ago is what I currently have. I pay the first $2500 out of pocket each year for myself and two children completely tax free. If a major event takes place, the high deductible policy kicks in and pays the rest. I saved about 3500 bucks last year with the plan.


Hellbender
(member)
09/18/07 09:03 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

You wouldn't stretch it a little would you Ozark??
Doctors strike



Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 09:59 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Whackattack said:
How's an old fart like you gonna afford a titanium hip replacement, bypass, or a hover round without a little insurance help?




Oh, we've got insurance. My wife and I have a policy now that costs us about $7200 a year. It's $5000 deductible on each of us, so I hope to never have a claim on it. We're just holding out for Medicare age, and in the meantime this disaster insurance will keep us from losing everything if something bad happens.

I've got stock in Stryker Corp., too. Stryker manufactures that hip-replacement hardware and a bunch of other medical stuff the aging baby-boom generation is going to need.

Like with Exxon Corp. and what's going on with oil - I figure if someone's cuttin' a fat hog in the ass I might as well get a slice of it.


Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 10:08 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
You wouldn't stretch it a little would you Ozark??





Nope. That highly-slanted article you cite is talking about stuff in the 1990's. The B.C. doctors' strike I read about lasted a couple of months sometime around 2003.

Admittedly, the stat about the death rate in B.C. dropping by 2/3 during the strike is misleading. There were no elective surgeries or treatments going on, so I'm sure a lot of Canadians crossed the line at that time and let U.S. doctors kill them.

As far as Canadian doctors moving to the U.S. - who could blame them? Making over a thousand bucks a day for playing God is a pretty good motivation.


Whackattack
(member)
09/18/07 10:14 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I figure Kimberly-Clarke and Pfizer as additions to my portfolio. I figure I got you old farts covered if you are chasing tail with the help of Viagra or sitting around chitting in your drawers with your Depends on.

Ozark
(member)
09/18/07 11:46 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Whackattack said:
chasing tail with the help of Viagra or sitting around chitting in your drawers with your Depends on.




With a little practice, you can do both at the same time.


Hop
()
09/19/07 03:39 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

One thing about it my friend using Medicaid for what it is intened to be used or is not a bad thing.. Your Parents paid hard working dollars to support those that needed assistance.

Not on thing wrong with your parents getting assistance after giving assistance after all these years.

Wht I see is the Abuse that is wasting dollars that could be used for parents like yours and mine and people that dont have the physical ability to get the care they need.


Hellbender
(member)
09/19/07 04:29 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

When you're faced with the real deal its easier to be objective. While a 14% survival rate for lung cancer ain't great, it 9% better than Canada's.
If one of mine is threatened, I want them to have the benefit of the medical advances that this country has made possible.
Some of you knotheads think that if this country is brought to the level of other socialized medicine countries, the research will continue at the same level, it won't. The end result is that medical advancement worldwide will diminish.


Liberty
(member)
09/19/07 07:10 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

while you're looking around the archives old man on this day in January 2008, why don't you fork yourself and there's another message for you below

what knotheads are you referring to? Has anyone here spoken for socialized medicine? Hell, I continue to say get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, then give me a time machine so I can go back and fix the deep pockets mentality


Ozark
(member)
09/19/07 08:03 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

If somebody could just clean up the abuse and overbilling in the medical field, that would help a lot.

When our youngest daughter was a teenager, she had to have her tonsils out. It was a day surgery, and we sat with her in the hospital all day.

They let her go home in the late afternoon, and in gathering up her stuff one of the nurses handed me a plastic bag. It contained a new plastic toothbrush, a little tiny tube of toothpaste, a little sample bottle of Scope mouthwash, and a little sample bottle of Tylenol - maybe $4 worth of stuff at WalMart, if they sold containers that small.

The nurse said "She can take this home with her", and like a dummy I said, "Uh, OK" and took it. When we got the bill, the hospital charged $68.50 extra for that bag!

Another daughter is a surgical tech. She says there's a sealed plastic kit in every emergency room that contains tools and dressings for some particular kind of medical situation, I forgot what. The kit is seldom used, and they go six months or so without opening one. Thing is - EVERY emergency room patient is charged for the use of one of those kits - $150 bucks extra, because it's available.

And like I mentioned before, that ambulance company recently DOUBLED the charge for my Mom's ambulance ride as soon as they found out it was covered by the government and insurance.

There's so much abuse going on - it needs cleaning up.


Hellbender
(member)
09/19/07 10:02 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Well Ozark all i can say is that you have bad luck, my wife is an RN, and has done most of her career in the ER, OF, and IC, and thats not normal.
I'll tell you what, you turn that portfolio with Exxon and all those other premo stocks of your, any retirement IRA's, etc over to the feds for a year. If you still think they can do a stand up job on things, I'll consider putting my health care in their hands.
In the mean time I'll stick with what I've seen work for many years, if you want the best performance, put it in a competitive market where a profit is a stake.


Ozark
(member)
09/19/07 11:09 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
if you want the best performance, put it in a competitive market where a profit is a stake.




I agree completely, and that's why government needs to get OUT of health care and not farther into it.

Any provider is going to charge what the market will bear - and when it comes to the deep pockets of the government and insurance companies, that's a lot. If people had to pay for their own medical care, then charges would have to come down to what they could pay.


Hellbender
(member)
09/20/07 06:32 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Let me shock the chit out of everybody, they should just extend Medicare to everyone, with some adjustments.
Everyone goes on Medicare and you pay for it through deductions for SS, if you want a part "B", with extended coverage, you pay more and its deducted from your pay,if you want "B" with a supplement thats OK also, you pay for what you get. If you opt for private insurance you have a bye on Medicare, but if you lose it Medicare kicks in automatically.


Ozark
(member)
09/20/07 07:30 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
they should just extend Medicare to everyone




And doctors will get a raise from $1000 a day to $1000 an hour. Every other cost connected with medicine would go 'way up too.

Why not - tax money pays for it, and if that doesn't cover it all the government can just run a bigger deficit.


Whackattack
(member)
09/20/07 08:53 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
Let me shock the chit out of everybody, they should just extend Medicare to everyone, with some adjustments.
Everyone goes on Medicare and you pay for it through deductions for SS, if you want a part "B", with extended coverage, you pay more and its deducted from your pay,if you want "B" with a supplement thats OK also, you pay for what you get. If you opt for private insurance you have a bye on Medicare, but if you lose it Medicare kicks in automatically.





Uh....NO!!! Medicare serves a very, very samll segment of our society right now. Expand that to 300 million and it will get ugly quick. It is also in dire financial straights. Medicare is so underfunded that the s..t is gonna hit the fan for Medicare long before it does for SS. Ozark's got it right. Get the government out of the forking social programs not put them into more.


Ozark
(member)
09/20/07 11:06 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Another little story about how much "padding" I think goes into medical charges:

A friend of mine is a veterinarian. I saw him one evening and he said he was tired, he'd been spaying dogs all afternoon. He did about 12 dogs at $75 bucks a pop, so he said he made good money that day.

I poured him a beer and asked him if that wasn't the same operation as when a woman gets "fixed". He said, yep - it's the same thing.

"How much", I asked, "do they charge human patients for that operation?"

He said "Oh, about $3500 or so. Those MD's and hospitals have really got it made".

"Did ya ever have a dog die, because of that operation?"

"Nope. In fact, humans would be easier to do. Big dogs are easy. It's the little dogs that are hard to operate on because everything is so small. And hey - a lot of womens' bellies aren't as hairy as the dogs' bellies."

From there, the conversation kinda deteriorated into beer drinking.

Now, I'm not saying that humans should get the same level of medical care as animals. But the point is - if a guy can make real good money doing that operation (with 100% safety) for $75, well, $3500 is sure a helluva lot more money for the same job.


Liberty
(member)
09/20/07 11:13 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Let me shock the chit out of everybody, they should just extend Medicare to everyone, with some adjustments."--HB

damn liberal


Hellbender
(member)
09/21/07 12:41 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

And doctors will get a raise from $1000 a day to $1000 an hour. Every other cost connected with medicine would go 'way up too.





Is that why doctors don't like to take on Medicare patients?
D you happen to have a story based on reality, something that connects at the end. You say you had to put your poor mom in a home under Medicare, than you say everyone should be responsible for their own, then you tell us you're making a fortune on Exxon. I don't know whether you're up or down.

Whack notice I said that some adjustments might need to be made. All I'm saying is much the same as you, just make Medicare the starting point because there will be an agency, either new or old. Irregardless of what needs to be fixed in Medicare, they do have plans from Bare Minimum to none if you're covered privately.

Lib, Liberty, liberal, sell the forest, put money in treasury, mo money fo Libs to spend, drive Hondas, drink Starbucks, etc. Ring a bell?


Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 01:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

damn man with your extend Medicare to everyone we'd have the sell the forests and a couple of branches of the military just to pay that damn bill.

damn liberal


Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 01:44 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

regardless, HB, irregardless ain't a word dude, regardless is though

Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 01:45 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, that's the beginning of the answer, right after we sell the forests everything's better in a private setting

Ozark
(member)
09/21/07 02:24 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I got an old aunt and uncle, he's retired from a good government job and he retired with full medical coverage.

They're on Medicare and they've got the government insurance plus a private medical insurance policy on the side. Since they've got double or triple coverage, they MAKE money most every time they go to the doctor. So - between the two of them they go to the doctor at least twice a week and they've been pulling that for over 15 years.

There's nothing much wrong with them, they're just old. Those two people have had as much medical care as the entire population of a third-world country gets - it's their hobby.

There's no telling how much the medical industry has made off them, and there's no telling how much they've made health insurance premiums go up.

I've got a feeling there's a lot of people like that - using up medical resources because they don't have to pay for it. Health care providers are glad to go along with it because they've got insurance companies and the government to bill for a whole bunch of unnecessary services.


Hellbender
(member)
09/21/07 04:07 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate



Main Entry: ir?re?gard?less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'g?rd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word , however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.



Is fork, like in fork you, a word Lib?

Quote:

They're on Medicare and they've got the government insurance plus a private medical insurance policy on the side. Since they've got double or triple coverage, they MAKE money most every time they go to the doctor. So - between the two of them they go to the doctor at least twice a week and they've been pulling that for over 15 years.




Bullchit, we didn't fall off the Turnip truck yesterday. You need to study up on Medicare, and see how it really works


Ozark
(member)
09/21/07 04:55 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
You need to study up on Medicare, and see how it really works




I know how Medicare works. I've been through years of it with my Mom.

I'm telling ya - for certain procedures and prescriptions they're submitting claims to two insurance companies and coming out ahead.

Anyway, the point is that when medical care is free people overuse it. The doctor's always glad to give you another pill - then another pill to counteract the side effects of that one, and another pill for the side effects of that one, etc., etc. Oops, we better run some more tests here.

Like any business's expensive equipment, whether it's a bulldozer, a printing press, or a MRI machine - you need to run it as much as possible to make it pay for itself. That's easy for the medical profession to do since the doctor gets to say what's needed and the government and insurance companies are paying.

Also, doctors are scared to death of malpractice suits. The way they protect themselves is to test and treat for everything imaginable, no matter how unlikely it is. If they undertest and undertreat, they might get sued - if they overtest and overtreat they make a bunch of extra money. Tough choice.

What do you think about those direct ads for prescription medications on TV now - where they're trying to get patients to ask their doctor to prescribe some drug? My son-in-law doctor says that's a real pain in the ass - lots of people see stuff on TV and ask for it. If it won't hurt them, he goes along with it - if they want it, he'll write the 'scrip to keep 'em happy.

Irregardless, I think we oughta run another diagnostic test or two.


Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 09:54 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

irregardless should be avoided in favor of regardless, Oxford Dictionary

HB the use of ir and less in a word creates a double negative in reference to regard so what is it those who think it sounds better are trying to say?


Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 10:00 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

But regardless, what a damn liberal, trumpeting the "success" of Medicare. Do I need to go over the stats in regard to Medicare since it was put in place?

Why you got to be so damn liberal, defending government ownership of vast swaths of land and now you defend Medicare

when are you voting for Hillary anyway, HB?

Barry Goldwater would be ashamed


Jaeger
(member)
09/21/07 04:26 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

You think health insurance costs allot now?

Wait till it's free!

This is nothing more than another in a long line of leftist scams to take your money and make your decisions for you.

This is not about insuring the uninsured. If you go to a hospital they will treat you no matter what.

Free does not mean free from responsibility. It means free to make your own decisions, even if they're poor ones. It means free to suffer, and free to define your own happiness. It does not mean that some polititian is free to decide what your future is going to be.

If this is "progress", keep it. Our society is going to hell because people have lost the concept of honor and shame. We are becomming a nation of lawyers, and it will most certainly be our undoing.


Ozark
(member)
09/21/07 04:31 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Irregardless" doesn't bother me much - I just avoid using it because "regardless" is the same thing.

The new TV newcaster words that do bother me (and you hear them all the time) are "horrendous" and "horrific".

Those are just made-up combinations of "horrible" with "tremendous" and "terrific". How ignorant.

Whenever you hear those words, it's Geraldo Rivera-type breathless sensational reporting - and I hate that crap.


Liberty
(member)
09/21/07 10:11 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

actually Ozark horrific and horrendous are proper words

irregardless remains a double negative and does not mean the same thing as regardless, regardless is no regard, irregardless is no regardless, nonsensical term no doubt coined by someone trying to sound smarter than they really are.

but back to Medicare for everyone, what damn liberal turnip truck did HB fall off of in the first place?


Hellbender
(member)
09/24/07 07:04 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Irregardless Medicare is composed of 2 parts, plus many, if not most opt for a supplement from a private insurer. The private insurers are a free market entity, so what do or charge is what the market will bear.
Ozark what did your mom have, A, A & B, no supplement, A & B & a supplement? It all makes a big difference.

As to medicare, once again the idea and the lay out would work well. I know the performance sucks, but how many of you knotheads think a new gubment agency will work better??

Double negative huh, is this a double negative.


Liberty
(member)
09/24/07 07:33 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I am still trying to figure out who on here you are trying to argue with that favors government involvement. Where is this ghost that you see that no one else sees?

Please explain how it is you can argue something that has not been advocated here, and how is it again that you would expand a government failure such as medicare and call yourself a conservative, or better yet, how is expanding a known failure better than the thing everyone here is firmly against, a new bureaucracy that will prove itself a failure overnight?

Again, who the hell are you arguing with, who are the knotheads who are trumpeting the greatness of government?


Liberty
(member)
09/24/07 08:56 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

how about an amendment to the Constitution that requires government programs be solvent?

That'd just scare the hell out of everyone wouldn't it, having to actually have the cash on hand to do what they promise.


Ozark
(member)
09/24/07 10:17 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
Ozark what did your mom have, A, A & B, no supplement, A & B & a supplement?




She had Part A Medicare, no Part B, and supplemental health insurance through G.E.H.A. (my Dad was a retired mail carrier).

'Way back when my folks turned 65 in CA, they had Kaiser Insurance. It was a GREAT deal with low premiums - all Dr. visits cost them $5 and all prescriptions cost $3. It's not that way anymore, of course. Because they had such good insurance at the time, they didn't get Part B Medicare.

But things changed. When you turn 65, be sure and get on Part B. When my Mom went into a nursing home at age 92 she needed it - and the only way to get her on it would have been to pay 27 years of retroactive monthly premiums. That's not a good option.

My folks didn't anticipate that medical costs and premiums would go up so much, of course - and neither did I. When I retired, our health insurance premiums had always been a couple of hundred bucks a month, no big deal. I figured they'd go up some as we got older, but I didn't know they'd go up 500% or 600% - and I think that's putting a lot of folks in a bind.


Liberty
(member)
09/25/07 07:53 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

whatever happened to here's your bill, pay it

I don't care how many damn parts Medicare has, damn chit don't work and all it has done is increase healthcare costs in this country by several thousand percent since its inception in the 60s.

Thank you LBJ


Ozark
(member)
09/25/07 03:38 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Liberty said:
all it has done is increase healthcare costs in this country by several thousand percent since its inception in the 60s.

Thank you LBJ




Exactly.

Like I said before, when I was a kid in the 1950's my Dad was a mail carrier. We lived on a cul-de-sac in a new "tract" home in CA. THREE medical doctors and their families lived on that block - and if they had more money than we did you couldn't tell it.

That's because a doctor visit cost about $5 and prescriptions cost about $3. Yes, wages were about a buck an hour at that time so those charges were substantial - five hours and three hours work. Still, medical charges have gone up far more than inflation.

The government getting into it has meant a massive transfer of tax money to private business - the medical industry.


Hellbender
(member)
09/25/07 10:45 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Let me shock the chit out of everybody, they should just extend Medicare to everyone, with some adjustments.




Some type of universal health care is coming, like it or not. Without whining, bitching and crying about how the financial side of Medicare performs, it will still be the cheapest and best performing overall, most likely. Its staged on what you have and can afford, and most notably only forces you to accept the basic, which doesn't have to be a freebie.
Quote:

whatever happened to here's your bill, pay it





It never existed dumbass, even among the rich.


Liberty
(member)
09/25/07 10:57 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"It never existed dumbass, even among the rich."--HB

spoken like the old liberal you are, it's existed for me at various times in my life, frankly during those periods I paid less for healthcare when it was straight out of my pocket.

never existed what a damn dumbass.

Oh and this it's going to happen anyway argument, what a damn liberal, what's next HB you gonna explain to me the evils of my SUV ownership and how I'm melting the ice caps



sad really, HB running around here acting like a liberal just so there will be someone to beat up on. Stop it HB


Hellbender
(member)
09/26/07 05:30 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

it's existed for me at various times in my life,




There are probably few that haven't experienced that dumbass, but being financially forced has nothing to do with the subject.
I'm going to tell you something that may shock you, so sit down, never mind I'm sure thats what you do all day , But back to the news, there was vehicle insurance before it was legally required. People actually bought it because they thought it was in their best interest.
Quote:

what's next HB you gonna explain to me the evils of my SUV ownership




I thought you had a Honda?

Me liberal, no you're more liberal then me. I'm a conservative who knows that sometimes its better to try and slow the train down, rather than stand in front of it like a liberal would, and you suggest. In case you were looking the other way, the House passed another freebie insurance this week.


Ozark
(member)
09/26/07 06:07 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
In case you were looking the other way, the House passed another freebie insurance this week.




I read something the other day, about how they catch wild pigs in the jungle areas of South America.

First, they spread corn in a clearing in the jungle, and the pigs get used to coming to that clearing to eat the corn.

Then a fence is built along one side of the clearing. That scares the pigs away, but within a few days they come back for the corn again. Then, the fence is extended to enclose two more sides of the clearing. Again, the pigs eventually get used to it and come back.

Finally, the fence is extended around the rest of the clearing, with a gate in it that's left open. After some time, the pigs will go through the gate to eat the corn. Then while they're in there - the gate is closed.

The pigs will run around for a while trying to get out, but they finally settle down and eat the free corn. They've paid a big price for that corn - THEY'VE LOST THEIR FREEDOM.

And that's exactly what's going on in this country, with government providing so much and taking care of us all. That "free" stuff doesn't come without a BIG cost.


Liberty
(member)
09/26/07 09:59 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"I'm a conservative who knows that sometimes its better to try and slow the train down"--Liberal Hellbender

when has that ever worked, damn weak spined call yourself a conservative while handing over every damn thing there is to the liberals, where's your fight old man


Hellbender
(member)
09/26/07 10:07 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Thats why they're still "natives", we would shoot them and eat pork with corn.
Was that your point?


Hellbender
(member)
09/26/07 10:26 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

when has that ever worked




Multiple times. The paper put out by the super libs from Berkley described your so called conservatism to a tee. Sit and hold your ground while the forest burns down around you, pun intended. Thats not what the Conservatives who have driven the Republican party since 1964 have done. The fact is they have tried to control the train, and make it run economicly for the long term, while idiots like you have stood in front of it like Wiley.
Chicken Little activists like you are no different then the Liberals. The forests that you run around claiming are burning down in hotter fires are a great example, the Libs want them put off limits to protect them from fire and you want to cut them down to protect them from fire.
I earned my conservative credentials, I voted for Goldwater, Reagan, etc. In the areas I grew up in conservatism has became stronger to the point of voting that way.
For you, I know you didn't vote for Barry, hell I don't know if you voted for Reagan, and as to growing up, how is Obama doing? How's that planet friendly SUK you drive doing.


Liberty
(member)
09/26/07 11:03 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Goldwater was against Medicare

Hellbender
(member)
09/26/07 11:20 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Liberty said:
Goldwater was against Medicare




Is that all you got?


Liberty
(member)
09/26/07 11:22 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

that's all I needed to say to debunk your liberal bullchit

Hellbender
(member)
09/27/07 05:35 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

The government getting into it has meant a massive transfer of tax money to private business - the medical industry.




So you're saying the government is already in it? Can you give us the source of this belief that the government has caused health care cost to skyrocket? Do you believe that more options in meds and procedures has had no affect? How about liability, no affect?

Lib like all closet liberals you want free care.


Ozark
(member)
09/27/07 10:43 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
So you're saying the government is already in it? Can you give us the source of this belief that the government has caused health care cost to skyrocket?




Uh, yeah - I'd think that's obvious.

Before Medicare, doctor visits and care were priced according to what people could pay. I've heard my folks say that my birth, which was a difficult one and kept my mom in the hospital for over a week, cost $75. total.

I guess medical insurance was available back then, but it really wasn't needed because rates were limited by what people could pay. If doctors and hospitals had increased their charges to outrageous levels it wouldn't have done them any good. People would have either gone without care or the doctors would have had a bunch of uncollectable bills.

Then the government got into it with Medicare and medical charges went up - 'way up. That made health insurance necessary, and with access to the deep pockets of the government and insurance companies the medical industry has been increasing charges all out of proportion to inflation for over 40 years.

It's nature of capitalism that the price of goods and services will always be as much as the market will bear. That's a good thing and it's self-regulating - if a private business charges too much, someone else will always find a way to be more efficient and charge less for the same product.

Where that gets screwed up is when government comes in - by forcibly taking money away from taxpayers and giving it to a private industry. That's what Medicare is, and like everything government touches it has created inefficiency, overcharging, and abuse.


Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 12:18 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Hellbender said "Lib like all closet liberals you want free care."

damn what level of dementia are you currently experiencing, you sit around and argue for a complete Medicare takeover, then try to argue that the rising cost of medical care in this country has nothing to do with Medicare and Medicaid, when you look at the graphs of the rising costs of health care in the country, why does the damn thing start its spike right after Medicare and Medicaid were created, did we all the sudden start coming up with new cures that required all the sudden expensive research, did we all the sudden decide malpractice suits were expensive?

Stop making a fool of yourself so that there will be an argument on here


Hellbender
(member)
09/28/07 01:39 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

There's one little problem with your theory Ozark, most doctors don't like Medicare because it pays LESS!

Hellbender
(member)
09/28/07 01:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

No Lib, you're just like the people in the ninth ward, no insurance just pay cash, just send you the bill, of course when you can't pay it you'll expect others to pay it.
Dats what yo pipple do.


Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 05:34 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

look I'm Hellbender, I'm going to say whatever comes to my mind first without the benefit of an inner monologue

hey world this Hellbender, I'm an idiot


Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 05:37 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

hey world I'm the conservative Hellbender who believes Medicare is the best possible health insurance on the planet.

I love me some aspirin at $10 per tablet, don't worry Medicare will pay for it


Ozark
(member)
09/28/07 05:49 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
There's one little problem with your theory Ozark, most doctors don't like Medicare because it pays LESS!




Sure, if Medicare pays 10 times what a "procedure" is worth and health insurance will pay 15 times what it's worth - then doctors prefer patients covered by insurance.

But how would they like patients with no Medicare or health insurance at all, who make an average income and have to pay their own bills? I bet doctors would prefer Medicare patients to having to try and collect $100-a-month payments from people for years and years.

That Stryker Corp. I own stock in - the news today is there was a big investigation of the kickbacks medical device manufacturers give orthopedic surgeons to use their products. The problem is that the cost of those products is hugely inflated to cover the kickbacks, and doctors are doing lots of procedures that patients don't need in order to sell the products.

Stryker "cooperated" with the Feds and ratted out the whole industry.

It seems it's common practice for orthopedic surgeons to get manufacturer kickbacks often exceeding $100,000 a year in the form of phony "consulting fees", free trips, new cars, etc. Stryker promised to quit doing that stuff and also ratted out its' competitors. Now the competitors have to pay $351 million in fines and Stryker doesn't have to pay anything.

You KNOW that won't stop the kickbacks - smart people and too much money are involved, they'll just find a way around it. The ironic thing is that the settlement didn't say anything about lowering the prices charged customers. So now it puts those companies in the unique position of being told by the Government they have to KEEP all the money they were giving doctors in kickbacks. No wonder they settled.

And you don't think there's tremendous abuse, fraud, and overcharging all through the medical business? Ha - there's probably kickbacks on everything from drugs to wheelchairs to BandAids to tongue depressors. This is big, BIG business with government and insurance paying the freight.

Darndest thing - my Stryker stock went up a bunch today.


hillbilly
(member)
09/28/07 01:21 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

The last few years it seems the feds have my number. I've been called in for jury duty service the last three out of four years. Anyway, the two most prevalent cases for federal jury duty have been either meth related or, you guessed it, medicare/medicade fraud!

Hellbender
(member)
09/28/07 04:50 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

The problem is that the cost of those products is hugely inflated to cover the kickbacks, and doctors are doing lots of procedures that patients don't need in order to sell the products.





Ozark you contradict your own argument. There's no doubt that pharmaceutical reps, kickbacks (which is common in business and not necessarily illegal), litigation, etc. are comman and cost money, but that does not equate to the government being the cause. The "cause" in private insurance is no universal insurance. Someone has to pay for those who don't pay. Someone has to pay for research, then someone has to pay for lawsuits and ridicules payouts.
Hillbilly hit on the biggest problem with Medicare, fraud. Medicare fraud in New York alone runs 3 billion annually.
We need a way to insure everyone, so that everyone pays a fair share. It has to keep up with a rapidly improving medical system. If the people made congress clean up Medicare, then it could fairly do it, with some obvious adjustments.
Why not let Medicare do it? Why install another agency to suck out more dollars? Medicare B isn't required if you have private insurance, it can be supplemented at a reasonable price to the point it rivals private.
Unfortunately private insurance hasn't taken the hint and made insurance available to more people, so now we're probably going to get something from the feds and its time to mitigate the damage, not stand and argue pure bullchit like Lib does.
We had better pray that the Republicans draft the legislation.


Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 09:42 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"We need a way to insure everyone, so that everyone pays a fair share."--Hellbender

spoken like a true liberal

why do we need a way to insure everyone? Why in a capitalistic society must everyone pay a fair share, rather than what share they want to pay?

you may be willing to take down your pants and allow the Dems to start screwing you because you think it's inevitable, but the rest of us haven't given up.

Damn Hellbender it is a load of horsechit you are selling, and to think that a Republican nationalized healthcare plan would be any better than a Democrat one.

the idea is to shrink government, not grow it, watered-down socialists are no better than double-strength socialists, the damn socialism lives, the only way it dies is if you do not allow it any space or any new life.

If you are not committed to the fact that it is the evil transition from capitalism to communism, then do me a favor, forget to vote the rest of your golden years.

I'm sick of paying for your generation's weak spine as it relates to standing up to socialism.

All you have done is hamstring future generations with chit that does not work and sucks us dry of our ability to make a decent living.


Whackattack
(member)
09/28/07 10:29 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Here's a little reason why you might not want Medicare expanded to 300 million people.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/M...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

Once the government starts dictating how much a doctor can make, said position no longer becomes attractive. Shortage of doctors equals fewer providers plus more people seeking "free" care. Recipe for disaster if you ask me.


Hop
()
09/28/07 10:50 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I can tell ya right now that alot of people think Healthcare workers cut a fat hawg when it comes to salaries. And I'm here to tell ya that just aint so... Swampy can tell ya that for the work we do we are very underpaid....And our employers tell it that it is because of re-embursements.....

I have a Buddy of mine that is an ER DOc that told me and showed me exactlly what ER Docs Make off of an ER Visit when it comes to medicad... It is $7.00 per patient.. And when you figure in a Billing service that gets 10 percent off of of the 7.00 for doing the paperwork.

And then there are insurance companies that dont pay like Coventry.. That is in the Millions just coventry alone.

And then you have the No-Payers who flood the Drs. Offices and ER's.

And just think each and every patient that walks through the doors has the legal right to sue you even if the claim has no merit... The insurance company that insures the Drs and Nurses and Hospitals still has to shell out bucks to defend you and then that gives the insurance companies ans excuse to sky rocket you premiums.

So if you ask me the very first place to look at is Tort Reform.. But that will never happen because Insurance Companies call the shots w ith the "Wheels in Government Office".

And if you add more of a burden to the system.. You think you see a shortage of Drs and Nurses Now and Long Waiting Lines in ERs and Drs. Offices You Aint Seen Nothing. Alot of Health Care Professionals due to Job Stress and Salarie are looking elsewhere when it comes to occupations..

It's sad that we have one of the Finest ER Physicians in Town that is going to work for a computer firm and not even giving patient care because of what is going on now.

Okay I'll Shut Up!


Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 11:22 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

ER docs don't make a lot compared to other doctors, basically the medical profession proves the old adage it is better to work for thyself than for someone else as ER docs are generally paid about the same as teachers, and less when you factor in the work they do.

Liberty
(member)
09/28/07 11:28 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Tort reform is one way to address the problem, so is addressing the deep pockets attitude that exists in enough places in healthcare as to warrant investigations and prosecutions. Fraud is huge. But Medicare for all is not the answer, no one system is the answer. Next thing you know, Hellbender will be arguing that we need one bread producer, and one beef producer and one rice producer and we all should drive the same car.

I refuse to let my American rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness go quietly in the night and allow them to be swallowed whole by a government that proves over and over again it is where incompetency breeds complacency.

you want to be like the rest of the world, I don't. Being the best in the world is something we should continue and Medicare for all or universal healthcare for all only means everyone suffers greatly.


Hop
()
09/29/07 12:06 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I can tell ya the Average Liabilty Insurance Yearly from an ER Doc is 60,000.00 a Year..Looks at what has to be seen before the Mal-Practice Insurance is paid for.

When it boils down to it Billary is just playing the same Game She did when Slick Willie Was in Office. Tugging at the hearts of the the public where they are softest.


Hellbender
(member)
09/29/07 12:08 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

why do we need a way to insure everyone?




Duh, we pay for everybody now dumbass. My wife has probably been an RN as long as you've been picking you nose Lib, and done much of the ER. I won't give a figure because I don't know exactly what it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of the ER visitors aren't Medicaid or and no-pays. Who do you think is paying for them?

Once again Lib you stumble around showing your ignorance.
Very few doctors are in what most would call private practice, the bulk of them work for hospital organizations.

If some form of coverage similar to Medicare doesn't happen you'll see socialized medicine. The plan that Massachusetts has is similar to the way Medicare is laid out.


Ozark
(member)
09/29/07 12:14 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hop said:
I can tell ya right now that alot of people think Healthcare workers cut a fat hawg when it comes to salaries. And I'm here to tell ya that just aint so




I guess it depends on what kind of doctor you are.

My daughter and Dr. son-in-law built a $2 million dollar house last year. He bought her a new Cadillac convertible sports car for her last birthday (they call it her "Chevy"), and they just paid cash for a new Honda Accord for my 15 1/2 year old granddaughter.

A couple of weeks ago son-in-law came home from work and threw a $10,000 check in his wife's lap. He said, "Here - go shopping and have fun." He'd built up too much vacation time on the books, so his "group" bought 10 days back from him.

Hell, I wish I'd married the guy.


Hop
()
09/29/07 12:36 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Like anything else looks good on paper!
Oh the ability groups have when ya have a group of docs that will barrow ton's of money on the group's credit!

Just like what one of the Cardiologist told me the other day... If we were all so well off with no debt we would all retire tomarrow!


Liberty
(member)
09/29/07 02:36 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Duh, we pay for everybody now dumbass."--HB

yeah and our system now is preferable to any utopian society you think the government can create

Who told you the fairy tale about life being fair and why were you stupid enough to buy into the idea?


Hellbender
(member)
09/29/07 04:17 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

But Medicare for all is not the answer,




Which is what I said, if you digested what I said, it was that it could envelope those that have no insurance. Most of the uninsured are that way because they don't want to pay for it. Put them in Medicare A, and if they aren't on SS, make them pay for it. make them pay for their kids.
We do pay for everyone in the form of higher medical bills, we pay for them, the lawyers who search out people to allow them to sue, for the fraud that congress doesn't seem to have the time or the will to stop.
None of that will alter the fact that the media and the liberals are going to get congress to affect a plan to insure everyone. The question is how hard will it hit the average person. Will they end up with a socialized system, a system that only who they consider wealthy will pay for, what? You probably think it will blow over.
If Chavez's ideas hit here in the form of Hillary, the wealth of the upper class will become Hillary's carrot to lead the lower class. Then everyone will have the same piss poor health care.


Ozark
(member)
09/29/07 06:51 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
Most of the uninsured are that way because they don't want to pay for it. Put them in Medicare A, and if they aren't on SS, make them pay for it. make them pay for their kids.
.............
the wealth of the upper class will become Hillary's carrot to lead the lower class. Then everyone will have the same piss poor health care.



-------------------------

Hellbender - several points:

(1) In the first place, I've already got piss-poor health care. My wife and I pay $7200 a year in premiums for medical disaster insurance - $5000 a year deductible on each of us. We've never had a claim on it, and I hope to God we never do.

That means, just like the uninsured, we pay all our own medical bills out of our pocket - PLUS $7200 a year for nothing.

(2) You're right - I DON'T want to pay for more insurance. I could pay double our present premium, about $14,000 a year, and then insurance would pay 80% of the bill every time we go to a doctor with the sniffles. But I think the price I'm already paying is outright robbery and it would be extremely stupid of me to choose to give them even more money.

(3) No conservative, as you claim to be, would write "make them pay for it, make them pay" when talking about expanding a government program. That's not conservatism, it's liberalism/socialism.

Government has just a few legitimate functions - the things that we can't do as individuals and have to band together to accomplish. Those include national defense, police protection, firefighting, building roads, and possibly (though I have grave reservations about this one) public education.

In my opinion, government was performing all of its legitimate, limited functions about 100 years ago in 1907. There wasn't even an income tax then - and that was the start of socialism in 1913 when the income tax began. That's when citizens instead of import tariffs started having to directly pay for government.

Socialism expanded greatly during the Roosevelt Administration with programs like Social Security and new taxes to pay for them. Even bigger moves toward socialism came during the Johnson Administration with Medicare and many other new programs and taxes.

Now, we're almost all the way there to European-style socialism - a system that has never worked at any time or place in the history of man. Every country that's tried it has found it causes runaway inflation, inefficiency, unemployment, and private enterprise having to go underground. It's estimated that 75% of Italy's economy is in the black market to avoid extortionate taxes. Britain has "tax refugees" living all over the world to avoid the British tax system.

Right now, the Euro is up and socialism is looking successful because goods are being manufactured in third-world countries for peon wages and sold for high prices in developed countries. That's a temporary, temporary situation - those third-world countries won't work cheap for long and within a decade or two the cost of all this is going to have to be paid for at home.

Letting government take over our health-care system will just about complete our turn to socialism - and I'm surprised you're for it.


Liberty
(member)
09/29/07 07:24 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I'm not, he's a closet liberal

Hellbender
(member)
09/30/07 04:50 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

As to 1, thats you, and I don't know what your situation is, but I guess its your choice.

As to 3, what do you mean no conservative would make them pay, who is going to pay? The only other option is for the taxpayer to pay it, I.E. welfare. I don't think thats a conservative viewpoint.
Flash, Santa Claus ain't going to solve the problem. You have to listen close and pay attention. You don't hear anyone saying that people don't get health care, most know better. They say they don't have Health Insurance, but many of those don't have it because they're free loaders. Hell yes I want them to pay for there coverage if they can, but I don't want them dragging everyones coverage down to meet the minimum.

Quote:

Letting government take over our health-care system will just about complete our turn to socialism - and I'm surprised you're for it.




I've repeatedly said that only those not covered, by circumstance or choice.
For all thats wrong with Medicare, it does act as a shock absorber and thats why supplements are so reasonable. People can't run to the ER for aspirin with it like they do with Medicaid.
Here's some points.
You aren't going to get cheap doctor services without socialized medicine, and in fact most of what you claim needs fixing could only be done by a socialized program.
How my thought that everyone who can pay should pay is Liberal escapes me.
I have yet to here what your ideas are, except to lower all the cost, but who do you think has the power to do that? My guess would be a government socialized program would be the only one, wouldn't you.


Hellbender
(member)
09/30/07 04:52 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Lib you wouldn't know the difference between an Arkansas Toothpick and a Coon's dick.

Liberty
(member)
09/30/07 06:30 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, obviously by your defense of Medicare and your defense of the Clinton Era Forest Management Policy.

Sadly, no one on here lives in the west to know just how damn liberal your thoughts are, but then again you spent a hell of a lot of time in Oregon didn't you? Figures, ain't a damn Republican out here I wouldn't biotch slap for their love of big government.


Liberty
(member)
09/30/07 06:33 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"You aren't going to get cheap doctor services without socialized medicine, and in fact most of what you claim needs fixing could only be done by a socialized program."--HB

Damn, son you are challenging Mondale and Dukakis for liberal supremacy with that line of horsechit.


Liberty
(member)
09/30/07 06:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"I have yet to here what your ideas are, except to lower all the cost, but who do you think has the power to do that? My guess would be a government socialized program would be the only one, wouldn't you."--LeftBender

there's this wonderful thing you lip service conservatives abandoned long ago, called a free market, that's how. Damn, you have fallen completely for the liberal two-step, first get them conservatives to realize just how evil they are so we can get a program in there that will be run poorly for 40 years to serve those who can't afford something, then rather than scrap the crap that don't work and go back to what we know does work (and if you were a conservative you would know the free market works when not saddled with government intervention) You, liberal Hellbender (kind of like Bizzarro Superman) want to reward the failed government program with more of our money so they can continue to screw up the market forces that still exist within an entire industry.

I guess you failed free market capitalism, but sailed through socialism. Anyone can sail through socialism, because it has no end game and isn't based on results, it's based on feelings and state power. Meanwhile, free market forces are in play and will do what they do, if they are skewed by do-good government (do-bad government) the outcome is a travesty and you want to continue to compound the problem.

Name anything the government can do better than the free market, anything.

You can't, government can't do anything better than the free market, hence why some smart individuals created a limited government and here you are handing over more of the damn keys.

Damn liberal, Tanvat may be more conservative than you


Hellbender
(member)
09/30/07 04:18 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

you don't know the difference between a liberal and a conservative, obviously by your defense of Medicare and your defense of the Clinton Era Forest Management Policy.





Liberty, like most journalist, you couldn't find your ass with both hands tied behind your back. I didn't defend Medicare, but unfortunately your lack of comprehension clouds your response.
I said that we have a federally mandated health insurance, and if we are going to make sure everyone has insurance, then lets use it instead of creating another inept agency. I also said those who come under it should be charged accordingly, something only the feds have enough information to do. If you have private insurance, you don't participate.

Clinton era forest management, you do live in ignorance of the very thing you profess to have expertise in. I suppose though that as a journalist your definition of expertise is more like Hollywood's than reality.

The Yellowstone fire was the reason the present management plan for fire suppression was installed. Do I need to point out when Clinton was elected, or can you find that information on your own?
Clinton stopped the harvest of public trees, based on erroneous biological threats, push by the media, and to Weyhauser, who happened to be a big supporter from Arkansas.

You need to do a little with a search engine before you step in it again.


Ozark
(member)
09/30/07 06:57 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Are you guys back to forest fires again? I swear, you both need little toy fire trucks and dalmation puppies to play with.


I don't know what the difference between a conservative and a liberal is, but I know the difference between a war and a revolution.

A war is when the government tells us who the enemy is, a revolution is when we figure that out ourselves.


Hellbender
(member)
09/30/07 09:51 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

a revolution is when we figure that out ourselves.





Revolution, how about a revaluation that came on 9/11, that them thar Muslims are really getting close now, and they really do want to kill all of us. No more Camel killing missiles launched from water to a desert. It ain't just for Jews anymore.

Give Liberty a break, he needs a simple argument to debate, like fire burns hotter so lets cut all the trees.


Liberty
(member)
10/01/07 03:38 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Clinton stopped the harvest of public trees"--Hellbender

what do you think caused the overloaded fuel amounts and fires that burn hotter, thanks though for buttoning up my arguments for me, you blindly walked into that now didn't ya?

for a guy who thinks he is somehow smarter than me, you sure as hell can't connect dot A to dot B and thanks for making my Clinton era argument for me.

you are always my understudy HB, always have been, always will be

And as my understudy, my pupil, you need to accept much earlier in the argument that you are wrong that way learning is not painful for you.


Liberty
(member)
10/01/07 09:17 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

when you stop spouting what any Forest Service PMIO (Propaganda Misinformation Officer) spouts verbatim, then I might consider what you have to say as something of use, until then you are simply helping a failed bureaucracy continue to fail the people it is charged to serve, not dictate to.

Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 01:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

what do you think caused the overloaded fuel amounts and fires that burn hotter, thanks though for buttoning up my arguments for me, you blindly walked into that now didn't ya?





It ain't the trees dumbass, its the brush and litter on the forest floor. They started addressing that after Yellowstone, which was slightly before Willie.
I hope you didn't spend too much time on the idea that if we cut the trees down they won't burn, thats not really Pulitzer material.


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 01:52 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

if you thin out the ladder fuels then the trees won't burn, what are ladder fuels, HB, come on you've lived out here you know what they are

by the way, they don't have a let it burn policy, though it seems like they do, they still suppress whenever they can, they just can't now days due to limited resources, heavy fuel loads and dry conditions

so what does a regular person do when they own too much? They sell it off or expend more of their resources to take care of it. What does the government do when they own too much? They just continue to own it and tell you that it is great that the forest just burned down.


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 01:53 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you still are about a century behind on the ole learning curve

Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 01:55 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

this is the part where HB then tries to tell me something about wildland fire use, and while those are in place HB over large swaths of forest, they aren't a let it burn policy, they will let it burn if a fire is in an area that threatens no one, but with the conditions in the west these past two years, there aren't many places where any fire doesn't have the potential to threaten people.

Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 01:59 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

oh and by the way, HB, you have obviously never witnessed the destruction in a forest fire, because if you had you cannot deny the destruction of the trees.

But then again you apparently are an idiot, speaking on something you think you remember.

Did you ever walk past the trailhead?

Guess what now days you don't have to to see the destruction, it's all over and miles and miles long, great scenic roads are now an avenue to view hell.


hillbilly
(member)
10/02/07 01:03 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Your main misconception Liberty is the here and now attitude. You have to think in terms of hundreds of years when discussing forest policy and management. And I'm sorry, but the fire policies causing you so much heartburn now were started 75-80 years ago. "Only you can stop forest fires" Liberty.

Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 05:10 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

As an expert on Western Forest, where you've spent 2 or 3 years , answer these questions.
Is there any correlation between drought and fire size?
Were there any years, when extensive timber sales were occurring, that also had serious fire seasons?
When places such as western Texas and Oklahoma have massive fires,98% of which is grass, is that added to the fire totals?

We'll be waiting for you expert report.


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 05:27 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

HB, 2 million acres burned in Idaho this year alone do the math now take that and place it over your state of Missouri, 11.2 million has burned so far across the country. In Idaho more than a million of that burned in the mountains in the forest, it was trees and they were wiped out over vast stretches. The areas all burned together creating a path of destruction some 30 miles wide and 90 miles long.

I don't care if you care or not, it ain't like your old ass is going to ever come back out west again considering how worried you are that the government won't take over your healthcare. Real people are put in real dangerous situations due to mismanagement of national forest land.

hillbilly, thinking that the forest service is going to be around in another 100 years is a bit premature.

HB why don't you answer a question, being the conservative you say you are (of course that is bullchit and you prove it daily) what's better, local or national control of these forests?

You are a believer in the liberal notion of wilderness, that believes man wasn't a part of the wilderness, how foolish are you? Now you want the wilderness practices placed on national forest. You are an idiot, behind the curve and too stupid to realize your mistakes.

The forests you so want your children to enjoy are fantastic places to visit now, the stands of trees are being replaced by grass. Now if someone would just forest the plains we can have total transference


JJ McGuire
()
10/02/07 06:47 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I love the smell of forest fires, it reminds me of my great grandparents' smokehouses. Never had finer meats than what they would make.

hillbilly
(member)
10/02/07 06:57 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Liberty said:
hillbilly, thinking that the forest service is going to be around in another 100 years is a bit premature.




Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Thinking the forests will be gone in another 100 years is pretty far fetched as well. Thinking man can realistically manage the forests better than ma nature is just absurd. Look where it's got us so far. Thinking the forest service is responsible for all the idiots building houses next to them without some sort of fire prevention plan is utterly ridiculous. I think them west coast libs are starting to rub off on you Liberty.


Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 07:26 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Yes Lib I must be a liberal thinking that the creator might do a better job of taking care of the forests.

I noticed that once again you answer questions with a question, which is what some people think liberals do to avoid the truth.

11.2 million?
2007 Fire Report


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 07:47 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

can you not add?

What is 8.2 million plus 2.7 million plus another 400,000 acres, why even I was low on the number

again do you favor local control over the forests or national control, it's a simple question.

the Creator uses us as well, or did you think that we were just witnesses to the world around us never having anything to do with anything.

hillbilly now we are getting somewhere you have hit the nail on the head without even knowing it.

"Thinking man can realistically manage the forests better than ma nature is just absurd."--hillbilly

and yet that's exactly what the forest service is doing and you want to continue their failed management, but in truth man has managed the environment around him as much as he is able since the dawn of time. It's no different than the beaver that backs up a stream, we have shaped these forests with fire, now we are simply destroying them with fire because we are not managing them properly.

"Thinking the forest service is responsible for all the idiots building houses next to them without some sort of fire prevention plan is utterly ridiculous."--hillbilly

who was there first, the forest service or private land owners, HB would say the forest service and he'd be wrong, I hope you are smart enough to know that the forest service is only about 100 years old and people lived in these woods long before they were instituted. I also hope you realize that there is nowhere on earth where you are not subject to one form of catastrophe or another and when a tornado takes out your house, at least you can have the comfort of knowing there are people as crass as you saying well if you are too stupid to live in tornado alley I got no sympathy for you.

When the New Madrid fault goes, would you like the rest of the country to just coldly say, well it's their own damn fault for living in an earthquake zone, they should have lived somewhere else. Where is this utopia you speak of that is not subject to one form of natural disaster or another.

We can mitigate the hazards of our surroundings, but when the government owns our surroundings and will not take care of their own property, where should people go? should we all be herded to some utopian place that does not exist or should we be allowed to live wherever and take care of our own as we currently do.

You speak ill of people who live in the forest as if that is somehow a crime and you assume that we do not take actions to secure our property. You think we do not utilize firewise practices and while that can be said of some people who build huge homes they live in about two weeks a year, the year round residents do what they can to prepare for the disaster most likely to befall them, just as you have probably purchased a home with a basement or storm cellar.


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 07:51 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

HB, let me give you a clue as to wildland fire use, those aren't all set fires, in many cases large swaths of forest are dedicated to this policy and when lightning strikes they allow some areas to burn unless people and property are going to be put in harms way.

therefore you have to add the 3.1 million acres to the total 8.2 million acres of wildfire. Now if you were as smart as you say you are about these forest fires you would already know this. The fact that you don't further diminishes your credibility on the issue.


Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 08:11 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Explain PRESCRIBED fires.
Again, what effect do you think Drought has on fire supression?
Do you think those figures are only for forest, I.E. tress burning?
How about some answers to simple questions?


hillbilly
(member)
10/02/07 08:15 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

According to my limited knowledge of forest service management, folks who owned land/house prior to certain dates have the ability to apply fire prevention techniques utilizing fed. lands. Those who built after a certain dates don't. I would place that squarely on their shoulders, where it belongs. That's considered responsibilty, a concept you have argued relentlessly in the past. The fact is people didn't use to build homes where they are building now. It was called common sense back then. And I'll be damned if forest policy should be built around their stupidity. And, like I said before, come back in a hundred years and see where the 11 million burned acres are at. I'll wager they are somewhere close to a forest again.

Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 08:49 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

HB,

I've answered your questions thoroughly over and over jackass, and you and I both know that the fires burn brush too, but they also burn forests, which you are so far reluctant to admit, and I have explained to you in great detail what types of fires they had in Idaho, more than half of the fires in Idaho were burned through forested areas, you can continue to not answer the question if forests should be managed locally or nationally, but I already know you favor a distant bureaucracy because you are a liberal.

hillbilly many of these towns have been around since the 1860s, get your limited facts straight.

When a firestorm approaches, no matter what you do to mitigate your property you are in danger because the forest around you was not taken care of by its present owners. And they have a number of excuses, none of which that don't call for them to consider selling off land they can't take care of. Whole towns are threatened, think what you want, but I live out here and happen to know what the fork is going on. You live in Missouri and think you know. And when presented with the truth you reject out of hand based on an admitted limited knowledge.

Come back in a 100 years, like that is possible.

Here's an example of how you are wrong from SOS Forests

"Take Mann Gulch, for example. In 1949 a forested canyon on the Missouri River 20 miles north of Helena burned in the fire that also killed 13 firefighters. In his famous book about the Mann Gulch Fire, Young Men And Fire, author Norman Maclean doesn?t discuss the vegetation much. There is this passage, however:

In the formal description of the Report of Board of Review:? At the point of origin of the fire the fuel type consisted of a dense stand of six- to eight-inch Douglas fir and some ponderosa pine on the lateral ridges.?

But it was a different type of fuel on the north side, where the crew was now on its way to the river. ?At the point of disaster the tree cover consisted of stringers of scattered young ponderosa pine trees with occasional overmature ponderosa pine trees. The ground cover or understory which predominated was bunch grass with some cheat grass.? Essentially the north side of Mann Gulch was rocky and steep with a lot of grass and brush and only a scattering of trees. The south side was densely timbered.

Maclean?s photos bear out his descriptions of Mann Gulch. Some were agency photos taken before the Mann Gulch Fire, some immediately after, and some twenty years later. The post-fire photos clearly show pine trees killed by the fire. The pictures from 1969 show no living trees. Maclean had this to say after he visited the site in the 1980?s:

Now, almost forty years later, small trees have just started to grow along the bottoms of dry finger gulches on the hillside in Mann Gulch, where moisture from rain and snow are retained underground. Since even now these little evergreens are only six to eight inches high, the grass has to be parted to find them?

This summer, 58 years later, Mann Gulch burned again. Whatever tiny trees had survived from the 1980?s were fried. What was once forested is now de-treed permanently. The canyon adjacent to Mann Gulch, Meriwether Canyon, was not burned in 1949 but did burn this summer. The dense thicket of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir cooked completely, as if Meriwether Canyon had been a giant pottery kiln."

here you have a perfect example that when a firestorm goes through it changes the landscape forever, those trees only started growing back some 30 years later and before they got to be of any size they were burned again.

In Idaho, this year, firefighters thought that old burns would slow the fires, they didn't, the old burns got nuked along with the new burns. This fairy tale about fires regenerate the forest is exactly that, a fairy tale told by people so you can rest easy at night, in the meantime property values plummet and recreational values within these areas diminish for generations. HB wants his kids to enjoy the forests, that's a fine goal, unfortunately he has cast his lot with the forest service and through mismanagement there are several forests that can no longer be described as such.

You want to talk about responsibility of the land owners, well here's one that needs to take responsibility for their land land you happen to own a piece of and here you give them a pass while attacking your fellow citizens out of your own ignorance.


hillbilly
(member)
10/02/07 09:14 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

It's called succession Liberty. Earlier cultures tended to manage for the early successional species, as your post describes, over most of the continent. If you want to do something positive for the forests figure out a way to eradicate the cheatgrass. Another of man's mistakes out west.

Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 09:16 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

HB wants his kids to enjoy the forests, that's a fine goal, unfortunately he has cast his lot with the forest service and through mismanagement




You know thats not true, but your only defense is to make up untrue stances that you attribute to me.
You come on here and try to make others believe that 11 million acres of trees have burned, thats simply not true, much of it is brush, most of it is private land or dry areas dotted with sage and Junipers (Cedars)with low branches. The fact is you don't have the information to make an accurate assumption of whether there are more acres of timber burning. Prescribed fires, the question you conveniently dodged, are fires started to eliminate ground fuel. They are started under ideal conditions to avoid fires jumping to the mast. Idaho, that you keep bringing up has gone through some rough fire years, and some rough drought years, making for a perfect combination.
You use the same style of evidence that Global Warming advocates do. Picking and choosing you evidence and refusing to answer any question that might threaten your claims.


Liberty
(member)
10/02/07 09:43 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

no most of it is federal lands and most of that is forested acres

and you continue to pick and choose juniper and cedar as if they dominate the land scape, maybe on your former scrub brush ranch

and HB you still haven't answered if you support local or national control of the forests, I wonder why that is, because you are liberal.

drought or not, idiot if fuels are lessened so is the fire intensity. Thinning works and since the forests have eight times the amount of trees as they had before, we need to get back to thinning

hillbilly, I can't do a damn thing in the national forests, point your suggestions to those who mismanage our lands.

Succession, yeah the Native Americans were pretty good at succession and creating old stand forests, we are not. We want to leave the forests alone, they haven't been left alone for 10,000 years, leaving it alone totally dismisses the fact that we have people living out here.


hillbilly
(member)
10/02/07 09:51 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21102611/

I guess the question remains, exactly who is drinking the


Hellbender
(member)
10/02/07 11:15 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

no most of it is federal lands and most of that is forested acres





You don't know that because you haven't done the research. I know what the Texas panhandle looks like, where there was a big fire, and there are probably more Honda Ridglines there than trees.

Quote:

and HB you still haven't answered if you support local or national control of the forests, I wonder why that is, because you are liberal




I've answered that over and over, National. I wouldn't let my county officials hold $5 for me until tomorrow. I want a professional staff to manage them, without having to show a profit. You bounce out there and try to pass yourself off as an expert, fact is you don't know chit. You don't have a clue whats burning and whats not. The truth is that most of the acres burned AREN'T timber. And you haven't a shred of evidence to counter that.
Its obvious that you live in a small world, Private forests from the west coast through AR and OK to the south east are grown extremely thick. The reason they don't burn as quick is because they are in plots, too thick for underbrush to grow, and unnatural. Natural forest will always be in the way nature, if they wouldn't they would be artificial, or cut down, like you suggest.
Don't argue thinning, you don't understand the process.

It will take time to overcome the mistake of fire suppression that was in place for decades until 1989, and it won't be cured in 18 years. There's no way man can overcome what nature did in many decades in less than two.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:02 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you haven't a shred of evidence to prove that most of the acreage isn't timber either, if so, you'd produced it by now. I have, unlike you, walked these destroyed forests in several states, and I know what I saw and I know it wasn't scrub brush

Ozark
(member)
10/03/07 05:16 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I'm willing to drive up there and burn all the woods down if it'll make you guys finally quit this.


Hellbender
(member)
10/03/07 05:18 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Don't look Ethel!

Quote:

you haven't a shred of evidence to prove that most of the acreage is timber either




Duh, I never said it was, you did dummy.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:21 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Don't argue thinning, you don't understand the process."--HB

I know that your blessed forest service is expending tax dollars on thinning the forests, but their plan is too limited to make a difference. I know that when you ask anyone out here who lives in a real forest they will tell you we need to thin the forests and that we need to do so in a manner that gets the loggers back into our forests rather than getting our lumber from elsewhere.

hillbilly, your story proves what exactly. Yeah some firefighters don't want to risk their lives for property that hasn't been protected by the owners and so I guess in your limited intellectual capacity you assume that is the case for everyone who lives out here, that we are all a bunch of idiots who don't know how to remove brush from our home for a minimal distance of 300 feet, have metal roofs, build with fire proof materials, have a sprinkled lawn.

Well if you think that story captures the essence of the majority of the people out here, then you cannot be helped.

Personally, I wish one of you would come up with a convincing argument, I'd much rather just say, well there's nothing that can be done better here, let's just watch as areas the size of New England burn up each year out here.

In Idaho, again HB, they had a series of large complex fires that eventually burned together both above and below the Salmon River, two major forks of the river had major fires along the banks, the famed Middle Fork was hit pretty bad by most year's standards, but considering what happened to its sister stream the South Fork it seems the Middle Fork got off easy this year. You had three large complex fires that were being managed as suppression fires and one large wildland use fire all in the same area. You want to let it burn, imagine if they actually did just let it burn rather than successfully snuffing out 90 percent of the fire starts on the forests this year. Imagine the destruction of the forests if they ever did hold to their letter of the law on wildland use fires. About 800,000 acres burned in those three complexes and the wildland use fire and all of the areas around the Middle and South forks of the Salmon River were forested lands, varying from Ponderosa to lodgepole to firs and more than 600,000 acres burned below the Salmon River in the forested lands, much of what burned north of the Salmon River was also forested lands.

Imagine your let it burn idea if it were actually accepted on all fire starts, they tried to put those Idaho fires out, but couldn't due to the extreme fuel loads and drought and low moisture levels and you want them to just let them burn, in conditions like the ones we had this year. I flew out to those areas, walked those lands, flew over those lands and its a war zone. I've seen normal forest fires and the effects, these are nothing like those of previous excursions.

you worry that loggers will destroy the forest, while I would never allow a clear cut of 800,000 acres, you think it is just fine for fire to do the same thing, guess what that forest you want for your kids, ain't there anymore. Those endangered salmon in Idaho, just got a little more endangered. And you would rather the problem compounded. And you would rather there be national control, well I got news for you, that ain't a conservative principle, I hate to break it to you.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:28 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I feel it important to mention I have nothing against forest service employees, many of whom are some of the finest Americans we have, and the firefighters, especially the ones that get over the thrill of it and take it seriously are impressive people, but the idea that one gigantic federal bureaucracy can manage millions of acres of wildland from Washington D.C. is not an idea that is ever going to be successful and it has been proven, over and over.

What would preclude a professional staff from being locally controlled, HB, apparently you live in some backwards county if you won't trust your county officials with $5.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:35 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"I'm willing to drive up there and burn all the woods down if it'll make you guys finally quit this."--Ozark

it'll never happen, HB will always continue to promote liberal ideas, and I will never let that stand, never.


duko™
(member)
10/03/07 05:50 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Was checking the stock market today and seen that forest fires have rose 6 degrees.

I suspect its from all the bullchit that Liberty has been selling


duko


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 06:02 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you idiots can continue to choose to support a failed government bureaucracy and you can continue to not understand life in the west.

hillbilly's story he posted says some astronomical number of homes have been built within 30 miles of a national forest since 1982 is comical to say the least, I'd like to see just how much land in the west is at least 31 miles away from a national forest boundary.

I guess what I should be doing is demanding all of you in Missouri build your homes to withstand a tornado and an earthquake and floods, ya know and when you are flooded out or blown over or shaken down I guess our response in the west should be that you should have built a stronger home at a higher elevation that was earthquake proof.

I would never say that though considering I know that there is nowhere on the earth where you are not subject to at least one form of natural disaster or another.

All thinning the forests would do is give people one more way to mitigate the hazards that may one day present themselves out here, just as you scurry to the basement or storm cellar or purchase property that is above the 500 year flood plain.

The thing is, we can't force our largest neighbor to take care of the land they manage for the people. And why, because they don't have the money to take care of the land they have and because of that, the conditions on their land threatens our land.

If you can't take care of your property, you should sell it to someone who can, it is that simple and all of you would agree with that, but you would rather argue for failure since I am presenting it to you rather than follow sound conservative principles many of you claim to adhere to.


hillbilly
(member)
10/03/07 01:20 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Maybe if you would look at fire for what it is, it wouldn't be such a boogey man to you. Everything you talk about is a simple response from nature to man's inept attempt at control. Thinning out the national forests is an impossible idea. Thinning out some areas around towns, homes, not so impossible. Now I know you have a vested interest in the logging industry to supply the podium (paper) for your rants, but come on. Take a trip to Yellowstone and try writing something about the wonderous system of rejuvenation the Creator put in place. Look at the natural state of overstocking created to allow for survival of the fittest to achieve a healthy, balanced forest. You have such a one sided view of the situation and yet you continue to rail against other views based on fact? Don't lecture me about conservation because the view you have is supported by industry only, it has no biological basis for a ecosystem that can take care of itself. Conservative use of a resource is one thing, but don't tell me ist all for the forest's benefit, because it isn't.

Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 03:23 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Thinning out the national forests is an impossible idea. Thinning out some areas around towns, homes, not so impossible. Now I know you have a vested interest in the logging industry to supply the podium (paper) for your rants, but come on. Take a trip to Yellowstone and try writing something about the wonderous system of rejuvenation the Creator put in place."--hillbilly

vested interest, damn how dumb are you?, secondly, rejuvenation do you know how much replanting is done when there are major fires? Do you? And third, thinning the entire forest is impossible? What are you an idiot? We don't need the entire forest thinned, whoever said that, oh yeah you and your boogey man that damn evil logger who provided you with everything wood in your damn house, but you sure as hell can thin where it needs to be thinned and that takes in more than just around the towns

and hillbilly, I know you happen to be ignorant of the whole thing, but guess what the forest service and their limited thinning budget, are putting that money around the towns and it isn't even enough to thin out those areas.

"Don't lecture me about conservation because the view you have is supported by industry only, it has no biological basis for a ecosystem that can take care of itself. Conservative use of a resource is one thing, but don't tell me ist all for the forest's benefit, because it isn't. "--hillbilly

it ain't conservation to let it all burn and to totally try to remove man from the forest. Now I don't know why you are so stupid or how you and most of the free world got so stupid as to think that man hasn't always shaped the environment around him. The fact of the matter is, I will continue to lecture your ass until you grow tired, change your mind or shutup, it is that simple, it is a test of wills and I happen to know I am right and am talking to someone who has no damn clue, someone who buys into the whole man is the problem everywhere in the world.

that's where your belief system comes from hillbilly, it is of the same ilk that coined the idea that man has caused climate change. Man doesn't belong in the forest

Your stupid ass article from MSNBC, a liberal outfit, that is against mankind when you get down to it points out that all these houses have been built within 30 miles of a National Forest boundary, others of the liberal let's remove man from the environment because he is the problem have said similar things about it being those who move to within 30 miles of federal land

IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK INTO ANYTHING YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT DENVER, LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, RENO, SALT LAKE CITY, PHOENIX, BOISE, PORTLAND AND MANY, MANY OTHER MAJOR CITIES IN THE WEST HAPPEN TO RESIDE WITHIN 30 MILES OF A DAMN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY.

Understand the side you happen to be on, it is the side that believes man is the problem that we somehow are not a part of this environment, that we are the problem within our environment.

Man used fire in the American west for 10,000 years to shape the forests, and he shaped the forests into large old growth stands where he could that were resistant to the types firestorms I am talking about that are being experienced today.

you would rather everyone move away from the forest, well I'm sorry but this is a free country and I'll be damned if some ignorant person from Missouri who has no clue what living out here is like will lecture me about where I live.

See how far that stupid ass statement gets by telling all the people in those cities that they live too close to the national forest, evil people encroaching on the forest that man has no part in.

Boy, the world would just be a better place if man would have never invented the SUV so we wouldn't all burn up and if man would have never touched the forest, that way he could have long ago died out for having never found shelter

THAT'S THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO YOUR DAMN ARGUMENT THAT'S WHERE ALL YOUR LIBERAL ALLIES TAKE THE DAMN ARGUMENT GET RID OF MAN

You want to side with that, well always know that I will forever be at war with you. And if you have any christian beliefs within you, you can start with love thy neighbor and figure out for yourself just how wrong you are in supporting a neighbor who's incompetence is forcing hardship upon his neighbors and has an army of environmentalists out there that get you to believe that man has no right to live anywhere near the forest, next time you decide to think for yourself, take a look at a map that show federal lands in the west and just tell me where in the hell more than a third of the US population should move to satisfy your stupidity, should we all come to Missouri?


hillbilly
(member)
10/03/07 04:02 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Like I said Liberty, you can't see the forest for all the trees in the way. You haven't a clue about the natural world but will try to cram your beliefs down the throats of those that due. I'm not buying your bullshit and never will. That liberal ariticle happened to hit on the three main arguments going on with this thread, but you chose to single out one over the others. That, my friend, is stupidity. You know damn well and good there are far more causes to the western fires going on than your simpleton, niave argument and the damn logging industry ain't going to solve them. Get over it.

Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 04:12 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

well while you continue to hate your fellow man since he decided to live near the forest, you might as well expand your hate for your other fellow men who decide to live near the coast or near a river or in an earthquake zone or anywhere else on this earth.

you promote a stupid environmentalist argument, the only difference between you and the committed environmentalist, is you are too stupid to realize what the implications of your argument are. At least an environmentalist will come right out and say it, man is evil and shouldn't be on the planet. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

and another thing, the forest service goes to point protection when they figure they can't stop a forest fire after about a day or two of initial attack. these articles you post give the impression that all us poor people who decided to live near the forest want them protecting us on our land, it is quite the contrary, we want them taking care of their own land.

you wouldn't know that however, obviously because you are too stupid to look into something for yourself and rely on only liberal media sources, and I've seen enough of your posts to know exactly where you get your information.

so why don't you man up and start telling Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver and all the other major cities in the west that they shouldn't live there.

And while you are at it, why don't you go to the forest service and tell them you are committed to having them eradicate the forests enough so that people will no longer live near them.

you are a child. you independent thinking never developed and now as an adult you make that point known with your every thought.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 04:16 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

by the way hillbilly is man a part of the natural world?

it's a simple question with a simple answer

but you are going to have the wrong answer or if you answer correctly it will be a hypocritical stance you have taken.

so which is it? is man a part of the natural world or not?

it's a simple question

but you think this is about the logging industry, how stupid are you?


hillbilly
(member)
10/03/07 04:32 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I really can't believe it but I'm going to have to agree with HB! Alls you got is questions. It just happens my independent thinking can encompass more than one thing at a time, unlike yours. Buy the way, no need to ask questions you know the answer to just to avoid the embarrassment your argument is weak.

Here's a simple question for you. Will a profit motivated company manage the forest in a natural state? It's a simple question. I have a feeling you won't answer it honostly due to you singlemindedness but who cares.


Hellbender
(member)
10/03/07 04:55 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

"Thinning out the national forests is an impossible idea. Thinning out some areas around towns, homes, not so impossible.




This is true, except in Liberty's world, because of economic reasons. To cut trees that the environmentalist lawsuits allow is impossible. In Liberty's world you pluck trees out of the forest. In the real world you build cut trees to build a road, then you haul skidders and the like in to the harvest area, then you have to cut trees that will fall to the ground. After they're on the ground they're limbed, which makes a big fuel pile that has to be dealt with at some expense. The logs are then skidded or cabled out to trucks that travel back down the road. What all this means is that harvesting trees is an expensive undertaking and the Forest Service doesn't harvest trees, they sell them standing. So if the FS wants an area thinned it has to include some timber worth some money.
The Democratic Congress prior to Clinton's gift to his backers, was greedy, as always, so timber harvest was done to feed congress, not to keep the forest healthy. The forest are now prime for a drought induced fire season.
If the forest are going to gain ground they need some thinning, but the timber would have to be a gift and that would raise more problems and corruption.
The best answer is to tell home owners they need to protect themselves, prescribed burnings, cutting dead stands, and allowing more roads, within reason.
Liberty's plan based on ignorance, because I guarantee he hasn't become an expert in a couple years sitting on his ass in front of a PC, but he thinks he has, at least enough to come up with a plan that would leave the forest to the rich. Selling them to Weyerhauser and investment groups wouldn't stop hunting, just for the average Joe that can't drop a few grand for an Elk hunt. Timber companies don't thin on virgin timber, they do on what they plant because its planted like cornfields, in rows. The trees grow thick, much thicker than in the natural forest and they are thinned as they grow. The nice spaced forest that Liberty sees on the West side of the Cascades started as a plot that an Elk couldn't live walk in, much less find anything to eat.
Once again Lib, I don't want the forest sold to Clinton's buddies, there will always be forest fires, but eventually, with good management they will overcome the damage done in the decades prior to 1988.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:23 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"After they're on the ground they're limbed, which makes a big fuel pile that has to be dealt with at some expense."--HB

and the fuel piles can be dealt with as there are markets for the slash as well, it's called wood chips which can be used for a number of things from ethanol to wood boilers to mulch, but then again I've witnessed this happening and you are operating on what you remember.

you've got Clinton on the brain

neither one of you would ever dare say anything against the current mismanagement of the forests by the present managers because you fear a boogey man, since you are both liberals

"If the forest are going to gain ground they need some thinning, but the timber would have to be a gift and that would raise more problems and corruption."--HB

more boogey men

"there will always be forest fires, but eventually, with good management they will overcome the damage done in the decades prior to 1988."--HB

and when does the good management start HB, cuz it ain't happening now, Clinton's cronies populate the federal bureaucracy already and I got news for you if you think they support elk hunting, you're an idiot.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:24 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

oh and another thing, the limited money the forest service devotes to thinning is generally spent paying people to thin out areas for them, because they are unwilling to open up large enough tracts to make it economically viable.

Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:29 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Here's a simple question for you. Will a profit motivated company manage the forest in a natural state? It's a simple question. I have a feeling you won't answer it honostly due to you singlemindedness but who cares."--hillbilly

what is this natural state you speak of? Seriously, you want to take man out of the equation, man has always used the forest for his needs from food to shelter needs to fuel needs

there is no natural state when you remove man, the dominant species on the planet.

Now are you going to answer my question or are you going to sit there and grandstand?

Is man a part of the natural world or did we fly in here on space ships?

Frankly, selective logging has been going on since man found a forest. It is no different now.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:30 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"To cut trees that the environmentalist lawsuits allow is impossible."--HB

so rather than fight stupidity you choose to enjoin them in their idiotic campaign to remove man from the forest

why not join them on the Global Warming scam they have too, HB?


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 05:37 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"The best answer is to tell home owners they need to protect themselves, prescribed burnings, cutting dead stands, and allowing more roads, within reason."--HB

allowing more roads, well your precious forest service is moving to get rid of roads all over the place

the owners by in large do take actions to protect themselves

in Idaho this year you had fire jumps of several miles, that happens to be the truth. Embers flew not a mile or two but several miles and started new fires several miles away.

how is someone even with a large plot of say 640 acres, a square mile for those you who have no clue, going to defend against that? I went to some of those communities and they all pretty much had cleared around their homes, some of them didn't but for the most part they were ready, yet no matter of clearing will ever stop the toxic air quality they get to breathe in for six to eight weeks.

continue to promote a failed bureaucracy and continue to blame your fellow citizens for living in a place even you dream about.

I guess it comes down to envy, you hate us because we figured something out that you didn't and you want us out of here, because somehow we are the problem.

pathetic really, absolutely pathetic.


Hellbender
(member)
10/03/07 06:17 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

and the fuel piles can be dealt with as there are markets for the slash as well




Yes they burn them. Wood chips, they make them out of small trees dumbass. Do you really think its worth the effort to remove the needles and cones, chop up small limbs and haul them out of the forest? Did you ever see a chip truck coming out of the mountains, I know you haven't so don't make yourself look any dumber.
You should find another subject, you're just digging yourself in deeper exposing your ignorance.


hillbilly
(member)
10/03/07 06:27 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Hellbender said:
You should find another subject, you're just digging yourself in deeper exposing your ignorance.




Damnit I'm agreeing with you again!


tanvat
(member)
10/03/07 07:46 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

From HillaryCare to Liberty's nonsensical rants about forest fires . . . wow . . . that's a stretch!

Anyway, Lib you said something interesting:

"Name anything the government can do better than the free market, anything."

I'll take a stab: police and fire protection, national security - Marines, Army, CIA, etc; criminal and civil justice, to name but a few basics. Your penchant for extreme statements emits some heat, but no light.

"You can't, government can't do anything better than the free market, hence why some smart individuals created a limited government and here you are handing over more of the damn keys."

I just did. If you believe otherwise; i.e., if you really believe government can't do anything better than the free market, then there is no need for government. I had no idea you were such an anarchist - but, I guess there are plenty of young hippie hotties at those WTO protests, so I guess I can see where you are comin' from.

So, listen up Liberty, and take this lesson. The capitalist market system is an indispensible mechanism for our way of life and has created a standard of living unrivaled in world history. It is an enabler of and outlet for human freedom. But a world ran by a completely unfettered, "free" market is not a world we live in or have ever lived in. Like nearly everything in this world, when taken to an extreme, an implosion soon follows. This is very simply because our market system depends upon the provision of certain public goods that can only be effetively and efficiently provided by government; eg., interstate and international infrastructure, a sound currency, national defense, property rights, rule of law, etc., etc. ) The public goods that governmet should (must?) provide are things that can be provided just as cheaply/efficiently for many people as they can for a single individual. When you have such a situation, it is also basically impossible to stop people who haven't paid for such goods from freeloading off the benefits - so when those two conditions are satisfied, government should be involved. Do you really want the "free market" to come up with ways of regulating and enforcing property disputes? That would amount to nothing but a "he who has the gold rules" system.

An example of your no-holds barred the government can't do anything better free marketeering would be slavery, child labor in the 1800's, etc. And if you really believe in a completely free market, then you'll have to admit that prostitution and drugs should be legalized . . . which actually isn't a half bad idea... And you'll have to quit whining about the gubiment's lack of action on National Forests - if it's a problem, then the free market should yield a cost/benefit incentive that encourages people to move out of harm's way. Of course, you'll object that the very existence of the National Forests is not a free market situation and is therefore bad . . . the obvious reply to which is that the folks who live in or around our National Forests enjoy the benefit of that environment presicesly because the surrounding area is relatively pristine and desirable because it is a National Forest and would whine like babies if a factory or suburbia sprung up next door.

FWIW, I used to live in Wyoming - brother still does - what makes that state great is its unparralled opportunities for hunting, fishing, backpacking, etc. in some huge tracts of farily pristine lands (if you can get away from the ATV's and don't happen upon the camp some of the slob outfitters that cart in their fat and lazy clients and leave trash all over the place) - wouldn't be that way if an unfettered free market had its way.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 07:50 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Did you ever see a chip truck coming out of the mountains, I know you haven't so don't make yourself look any dumber."--HB

here's another point where you are totally in the dark, in fact I have, just three weeks ago


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 07:56 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

prostitution and drugs should be legalized Tanvat

as to your other points, wow Tanvat are you arguing that government should only do what the Constitution says it should do rather than all the other crap it tries to do beyond police, military, firefighting, roads and a postal service (which by the way the free market does that better with the internet and Fedex and UPS and that other company)

what is pristine lands Tanvat, would those be the lands untrammeled by that evil man species?

the fact of the matter is you are all out to lunch defending a failed system, that if it were open to suggestion wouldn't require a call to have it sell off a great deal of its holdings.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:00 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Yes they burn them. Wood chips, they make them out of small trees dumbass."--HB

what do you think thinning requires HB?

you continue to operate under some dumbass, I hate industry mentality you have on loan from the nearest environmentalist, that a thinning operation would come in and remove all the old growth trees and leave the chit behind

Why does selective logging work in Missouri? And somehow it doesn't work out here?

You're fukking stupid


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:05 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

I've never seen a wood chipper coming out of the mountains

don't even say you have because I know you haven't or something to that effect from the old idiot HB

http://66.60.184.155/incident/pictures/large/801/12/




I forget how many truckloads of the stuff they were doing at this other site I went to, but I think it was something like 20 trucks for some fairly small operation.


tanvat
(member)
10/03/07 08:14 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Lib, just responding to your argument that the government should not do what the Constitution says it should; i.e., your statement that there is nothing that government does that the free market cannot do better.

The "fairly pristine" lands to which I refer are those that are still fairly intact, pretty much like they were 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 200 years ago - take a week or so and walk up to lakes along the Continental Divide in the Wind River Range and catch a cutthroat or up deep into the Absaroaka east of Yellowstone and watch bull elk graze at treeline - those are the lands I'm referring to. These places aren't "untrammeled by that evil man species" as you say - people like myself and many others - more every year -go there, and we spend good money to do it. But the land functions much like it always has and is, therefore, "fairly pristine." Of course, its a good thing for us that most of the Lower 48 is not pristine, as we need places to live and we need to access and utilize natural resources to sustain ourselves. But, unless you think that there is absolutely no value at all to a few remnant wild places, then it seems a reasonable compromise to leave well enough alone and to preserve intact the few remaining relicts of our natural heritage. Less than 5% of the Lower 48 is protected in national parks and National Forest Wilderness areas - its not unreasonable to let that be. And its not unreasonable to hold our National Forests in trust for ourselves and future generations - if you believe otherwise, witness the devastation visited on the Ozarks in the late 1800's and early 1900's by a "free market" logging spree. If you want our entire country divyed upon into 10 acre ranchettes, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Seems your position may be as unreasonable, uninformed, and as poorly thought out as the most misanthropic extreme tree-hugger - just on the other side of the spectrum.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:28 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

hey tanvat take away the government laws that restrict a private company from owning military weaponry and guess what, the profit-driven company will do it better than the wasteful spending Pentagon.

Private roads are also another case where they work in many cases better than the government alternative, which could be anything from no road being built to some road that doesn't meet the needs of its users. But then again, the government builds all those roads in those subdivisions now doesn't it? And those annoying private toll roads that are always in better shape than the government roads, those are terrible


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:30 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"still fairly intact"--Tanvat

intact what happened to the other land, oh yeah those evil people decided to live on it and that just bothers the hell out of you, are you a homeless person? Just asking.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:34 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"But, unless you think that there is absolutely no value at all to a few remnant wild places, then it seems a reasonable compromise to leave well enough alone and to preserve intact the few remaining relicts of our natural heritage."--Tanvat

there you go making up assumptions that are untrue, of course there is value to wild places, but the value is in man's ability to use those places, when they burn up that value plummets for generations and they are totally burning up, not nice little ground fires, crown fires, firestorms wasted landscapes for miles and miles and miles and you guys think that it is great.

It's not great, it places people in danger and ruins entire economies in various regions, those evil outfitters you speak of go out of business pretty quick when their area of the forest that they have a permit to operate in goes up in flames.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:37 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

What you boys fear, a raping of the forest, is already occuring through the mismanagement of the forests by the federal government.

When 800,000 acres is destroyed in a basically continuous path in Idaho, you wouldn't stand for it if it was loggers, but you applaud it as great when it is done by fire.

I take it you could care less if it was human originated or lightning originated, I mean the same end result occurs, the forest is gone so you get to have a rejuvenation, right?


Hellbender
(member)
10/03/07 08:39 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

You just can't help yourself can you Lib?

We have a portable chipper, setting on a hard surface road, being fed logs from a burn into it by FS personnel, it appears 4, need a big crew, and the chipper is feeding a dump truck.
Yeah you got me LIB, that sure looks like a logging outfit chipping slash at a harvest site.
You really just can't help yourself can you?


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:44 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

well let's see, it was in an actively burning area, so they all had to be wearing Nomex outfits so it's kind of hard to tell who is FS and who is a private contractor, let me give you a clue, the private contractors were likely the ones operating the machinery and the FS seasonal employees were the ones handing over the slash.

Boy for someone who thinks he's an expert on all things west, you sure have a lot of holes in your arguments.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 08:46 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

and you said I have never seen a chipper truck coming out of the mountains, admit it dumbass you were wrong.

Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 09:04 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"Yeah you got me LIB, that sure looks like a logging outfit chipping slash at a harvest site."--HB

look HB has a new bar he's set for me


Hellbender
(member)
10/03/07 10:02 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Hey stupid, pat attention, thats not slash. Slash is the pieces left over from trimming a tree into logs, period.
Slash is in the woods, not laying on the side of a road.

A truck with chips in it isn't a chip truck, doesn't matter if it a dump truck, pick-up truck or a crappy wannabe like a Ridgeline. Its a truck built to carry chips, has a permanent canvas cover and a belly dump. They resemble grain trucks. I know thats probably a bad example because you probably don't know what a grain truck looks like either.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 10:37 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

that's a road in the forest, those are limbs and tops i.e. slash

a portable chipper and a dump truck to take the chips elsewhere. If you wish to be specific after the fact, maybe you should think of these things beforehand so I can again prove your ass wrong.

but I do love your narrow definitions to try to look smart, however, keep it up, I love arguing with a man in the latter stages of dementia trying to recall his past life on a scrub brush ranch.

if you had any power of deduction you could figure out that the process of chipping slash in the forest isn't as burdensome as you suggest, just as thinning the forest if allowed isn't as burdensome as you suggest

all the sudden everything has to be a certain way, the way you saw it happen when you were 12 and George Washington was cutting down a cherry tree, I guess you had a problem with that too.


Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 10:58 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

of course it will be impossible as they continue to implement roadless plans, just as fires will be impossible to get to when they threaten towns when they continue to implement the roadless plan. Aerial attacks are great, but just like in war, they require a complimentary ground force to be successful.

Liberty
(member)
10/03/07 11:20 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

George W. Bush plan for National Forests

"Significantly step up efforts to prevent the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder active forest management; work with Congress to pass legislation that addresses the unhealthy forest crisis by expediting procedures for forest thinning and restoration projects; and fulfill the promise of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan to ensure the sustainable forest management and appropriate timber production."

more

"For example, in Oregon, federal officials identified the Squires Peak area as a high fire risk in 1996, and began planning a project to thin crowded trees and dense underbrush on 24,000 acres. After six years of analysis and documentation, administrative appeals and two lawsuits, work was allowed to begin on 430 acres of the original 24,000-acre project. When lightning ignited the Squires Peak fire on July 13, 2002, with only a fraction of the area thinned, the fire quickly spread to 2,800 acres. The thinned area was unharmed by the fire. In un-thinned areas, the fire killed most trees, sterilized soils, and destroyed the habitat of threatened spotted owls. The fire cost $2 million to suppress, and $1 million will be needed to rehabilitate the devastated area."


Hellbender
(member)
10/04/07 12:13 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

that's a road in the forest, those are limbs and tops i.e. slash




WITH A FRIGGIN MAILBOX!!!!!

You're out of your league when it comes to Western forest Lib, give it up.


Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 01:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

that'd be your urban interface HB and I was waiting all day for you to notice the damn thing so you could overreact as always as if you've just discovered something

I take it you believe those people should move out of the forest cede their land to the federal government.

well, you would be in lockstep with the policy makers who are in bed with the environmentalists, damn shame of it is, Bush actually has a good plan for the forests and it ain't ever going to get implemented as it should be.


Hellbender
(member)
10/04/07 02:31 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

that'd be your urban interface HB and I was waiting all day for you to notice the damn thing




Quote:

that's a road in the forest, those are limbs and tops i.e. slash

a portable chipper and a dump truck to take the chips elsewhere. If you wish to be specific after the fact, maybe you should think of these things beforehand so I can again prove your ass wrong.






No you didn't Lib, I was waiting to see your answer about it not being slash in the forest, but I had to point it out to you.

You got nuthin' Lib, you know nuthin', nothin'.


Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 06:31 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

it was slash, HB, I hate to break it to you, it was a national forest sanctioned thinning project in a small collection of cabins on a thin strip of private land that was completely surrounded by national forest

it was instigated in the middle of a huge fire this year


Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 07:08 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Solution to fires: privatize Idaho's forests

Bryan Fischer
August 22, 2007


As forest fires now threaten the homes of the rich and the famous in the Sun Valley area, it's worth taking another look at possible solutions to what has been a catastrophic fire season in Idaho.

Common sense tells us that people are inclined to take better care of property they own than property they don't, and, as even the Idaho Statesman's environmental reporter Rocky Barker reveals, perhaps the solution to devastating forest fires is to take timber management out of the hands of the federal government and put it in the hands of private enterprise through lease arrangements or sales.

Barker revealed in a story that appeared in the Sunday edition of the Statesman that the number of fires burning in private forests in Idaho is "effectively zero."

Private forest fires are extinguished almost immediately by the quick response of owners. One manager of private timber lands says the worst fire he's seen on private land is about 100 acres, which is a long ways from the well over 700,000 acres currently ablaze in national forests in Idaho.

The reason: better and more intensive forestry practices, which include thinning forests to reduce the fuel load, and a system of roads which makes access to fires much easier.

Around 64% of forest lands in Idaho belong to the federal government but more than half of that land is either roadless or wilderness, making fighting fires a daunting task. Just 5% of Idaho's forests are in private hands.

Private forest lands have 24-hour fire lookouts, a practice abandoned by the Forest Service for airplane surveillance. Said the private manager, "We get to our fires before they burn a tenth of an acre on average."

He counted just 86 trees per acre in the private forestland he manages, while the adjacent Forest Service land has 200 to 300 trees per acre, trees which compete for water and nutrients and add fuels that carry ground fires like ladders to the forest crown.

Plus, thinned forests which don't burn are good for the planet, according to environmental doctrine, since the air is not filled with smoke and carbon from burning trees. And environmentalists should celebrate such forest management, because fires turn forests from places where carbon is sequestered and kept from being released into the atmosphere into raging sources of global warming gases.

Said this private forest manager, "How much carbon are we putting in the atmosphere right now that could be locked up in homes and timber products?"


Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 07:11 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Kempthorne: Fire policy increasingly emphasizes ?wildland-urban interface?

August 21, 2007

by Brad Carlson

Increasingly, the Bush administration wildfire policy focuses on areas where people, structures and fire fuel are in close proximity, U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said today in an interview with the IBR.

Kempthorne, this month based at the Idaho state office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Boise, said the Bush administration since 2001 has spent about $600 million a year on its Healthy Forests Initiative.

?Initially it was more random. Now it is at least 60 percent aimed at the wildland-urban interface,? he said.

Kempthorne recently toured the Angora Fire in the Lake Tahoe area. The fire has destroyed structures, but firefighters succeeded in protecting structures in a number of areas, he said.

Also on that trip, U.S. Senators from Nevada and California met with Kempthorne to discuss the prospect of removing more timber from federal forests.

When Kempthorne was Idaho governor (January 1999-May 2006) and a member of the state land board, a bug-infested tree on Idaho-owned land could be removed, he said.

?It?s much more difficult on federal land,? he said.


hillbilly
(member)
10/04/07 01:03 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

The big power brokers of the west, cattlemen and loggers, will never stop trying for the land grab Liberty. You've been well endoctrinated by them we know. The lease arrangement and sales mentioned in your article are nothing more than government sponsored subsidies. Something I assumed you weren't in favor of. There's nothing wrong with selling timber to the highest bidder in suitable acres, but in should be competitive.

Hellbender
(member)
10/04/07 04:06 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

Common sense tells us that people are inclined to take better care of property they own than property they don't,




Common sense tells you that that is true, because public land belongs to all, the good the bad and the ugly will use it. Common sense tells you that private land doesn't suffer the same because virtually no one uses it. Thanks for bringing a long dry article, pointing out the obvious, to our attention Lib.

Lib you may believe thats slash, and for someone who's never seen a logging operation or a slash pile, and thrives in the urban forest, I suppose I can understand how you would make such a stupid mistake.

You're done Lib, your credibility on here is sinking below big Al's and his Global warming crap.


Hellbender
(member)
10/04/07 04:24 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Hmmmmm. Slash huh?
http://66.60.184.155/incident/pictures/full/801/13/

Logging Huh?
http://66.60.184.155/incident/pictures/full/801/11/

What kind of trees are these Lib?

http://66.60.184.155/incident/pictures/full/801/6/




Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 07:16 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"for someone who's never seen a logging operation"--HB

well I have as rare as they are, but you're only helping to ensure future generations will never see another one, because there won't be any forest left to log.


Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 07:27 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"The big power brokers of the west, cattlemen and loggers, will never stop trying for the land grab Liberty. You've been well endoctrinated by them we know. The lease arrangement and sales mentioned in your article are nothing more than government sponsored subsidies. Something I assumed you weren't in favor of. There's nothing wrong with selling timber to the highest bidder in suitable acres, but in should be competitive."--hillbilly

at least I know the proper relationship between a citizen and his government in this country and I don't bow down to the almighty federal government such as the sheep I am arguing with.

there's also nothing wrong with the federal government loosening its grip on land it can't take care of and sell it to someone who can, or are you one of those enlightened individuals who's never used a wood product in your life or written something down on paper.

they don't even have to sell all or even a half of it to satisfy me, just sell off the stuff that threatens the people who live out here, they can keep the interior forests and they can turn them into the so-called pristine, untrammeled by man acreage they desire, then when all of it burns the only forest we'll have left will reside on private and state land.

they can't take care of it, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I know what the problem is, they have too much land to take care of for the amount of money and personnel they have.

Common sense will tell you that if you can't take care of something you should find someone who can.

Sell it off in small tracts 40, 80, 120, 160 acres, sell no more than 640 acres to a buyer. People with their own selfish interests (Hellbender might remember this as the original conservative idea). Those people will take care of the land and manage it for their own interest. Some will take out the trees, others will thin the trees, all of them will manage it in a way that minimizes the effects of catastrophic fire on their land.


Hellbender
(member)
10/04/07 08:12 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Your credibility is at a new low Lib, give it up.

Liberty
(member)
10/04/07 08:51 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

that's always the response of someone who has no argument, HB

Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:34 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/forestrecov/Costsofdelay.pdf

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/forestrecov/CAnoreforestation.pdf

these are from the Society of American Foresters

I especially like the second one, 20 years after the fire, the trees aren't coming back.


Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:38 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

they're on top of it

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/forestrecov/Montanaerosion.pdf


Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:40 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Hellbender's inaction plan revealed in this photo

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/forestrecov/SouthDakotareburndamage.pdf


Hellbender
(member)
10/05/07 02:41 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

You're losing ground.

Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:44 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

again the Society of American Foresters

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/fire0902.cfm


Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:48 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

removing biomass i.e. thinning out the overloaded fuels and using them

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/Biomass_Utilization_Position_10-19-05.pdf


Liberty
(member)
10/05/07 02:49 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"You're losing ground."--Hellbender

spoken like a man with no argument


Hellbender
(member)
10/05/07 08:55 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

spoken like a man with no argument




Spoken like a man with no answers, looking for wiggle room.


Liberty
(member)
10/06/07 12:37 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

the answer is sell a great deal of the national forests to the states and to private people. The state sales should be massive acreage sales of 25-50,000 and to private people 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 acre sales. Cut the national forest inventory by at least 33 percent. Allow for more local control of the management of forests, place the trust in the local operations rather than Washington, D.C. When this occurs the forests will be thinned properly.

Your answer is to leave it alone, let it burn, let the forest service take out most of the access roads so that the only people who can use it will end up being crazy hippie backpackers. Continue to have the forest service spend billions of dollars watching fires instead of fighting them because you would think it a terrible shame for the wildland firefighting industry to take a hit. You would want the people who live near the forest to be forced from their homes so you can rest easier at night. That's the summation of your answer, which is why you are so reluctant to share it.

You've provided the vacuum and I am more than happy to fill it up for you with what your ideas lead to.


Liberty
(member)
10/06/07 01:33 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Rush is right

CALLER: Hey, mega dittos, Rush, from the People's Republic of California.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I just wanted to call and comment about the Lake Tahoe fires. One thing I'm not really hearing -- I keep hearing about global warming -- I have not been hearing about the poor forestry management over there. One of the reasons everything's burning is, with all the environmentalists living there, they don't allow any removal of deadwood or undergrowth.

RUSH: Yeah, I know, I just did a story about this. The problem with it is you've got the environmentalists who have got the local outfit that manages this stuff totally intimidated.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Deadwood, they're not allowed to cut down. They're not allowed to thin these forests at all and take away some of the fuel that a fire would feed off of. Then you've got the San Francisco Chronicle, and other liberal newspapers, saying, (summarized), "No, this is not the problem of environmentalism! This is global warming and development. There are too many people live there who shouldn't be living there. We're destroying pristine nature." It's, frankly, ridiculous, the idea that human beings are the only ones that are unable to alter our environment. We're part of nature as much as everybody else is, and every element of nature alters the environment in order to thrive, and we do, too. The idea that we are not allowed to interact with nature because we destroy it and we disturb it and so forth is another one of these bleeding heart, left-wing belief systems that has its roots in, "(sigh) It'd be so nice if we didn't cut down that tree. It'd just be so nice if people didn't live that close to the lake. It'd just be so nice," and, of course, that's the emotional appeal that gets everybody: "Oh, how can we harm these poor people? We are a nice people," we want to be, and we end up not being nice to ourselves. (interruption) What? We just had a question asked by one of my obedient staff, ladies and gentlemen: "How does a fire start because of global warming?" The fire doesn't start because of global warming. But the inability to put it out and to keep it from spreading, high winds, unusually high temperatures, lack of rainmaking the timber dry and just lethal, that is because of global warming. (interruption) Well, of course, because those forest fires started by lightning, and lightning is nature. But a forest fire where human beings live is not nature; it is destruction. I can't believe you still haven't figured this stuff out after 19 years of listening.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, remember two weeks ago we told you that the northern spotted owl was back in the news, back in trouble, and the numbers of pairs of northern spotted owls is continuing to dwindle out there? Despite all of the preservation of pristine, old-growth forests, where we were told for years in the eighties and nineties, that only there could the spotted owl thrive. If it didn't have pristine, old-growth forest, why, it would die out -- despite the fact that pictures of them living in the red K in the Kmart sign were all over the place.

So this story is in the Christian Science Monitor: "Northern Spotted Owl's Decline Revives Old Concerns -- [M]ost agree, could reignite the 'timber wars' of the 1980s and '90s, with lawsuits flying and activists tree-sitting to stymie loggers whose livelihoods depend on access to national forests," and that's what the spotted owl controversy was about in the first place. However, this story does mention one thing and leaves out something else that's crucial. Get this. Folks, this is a great illustration of how you should be skeptical of everything you read and see in the Drive-By Media, because when the spotted owl controversy was up, we were telling you that this argument that they will only live in "old-growth forests" was wrong. It couldn't possibly be true because they were spotted living elsewhere. In fact, Weyerhaeuser or somebody was replanting. You know, they replant trees when they cut 'em down. The people in the wood business, the timber business need product. The tree is just a crop. It takes a little bit longer than a stalk of corn to grow, but they plant these things constantly. They spotted northern spotted owls living in young trees, certainly not old growth. What's "old growth" anyway?

"Old growth, Mr. Limbaugh, is trees that have been here since the creation of time!"

"Oh, give me a break!"

"Yes, those beautiful redwoods, Mr. Limbaugh, they're hundreds and hundreds of years old."

"Yeah, well, we're all here thousands and thousands of years. If those things are as old as the planet, we could climb to the moon on them. Idiot!"

I remember these people calling, talking to me about this. Now, listen to this: "The latest recovery proposal tries to incorporate new information about where spotted owls prefer to live (which is not always old-growth forests)..." Really? Yes. "'We've had years of intensive scientific study on the northern spotted owl, so we've learned a lot more about it, a lot more about the habitat it needs,' says Phil Carroll, spokesman for the FWS's Oregon field office in Portland. For example, he says, in some parts of its range, it's not quite as dependent on big blocks of old growth as we had thought before.'" So all of this in the eighties, about the spotted owl and putting the timber business out of business, was a hoax! They knew then it was a hoax, and now they've got the guts to report it. What this story doesn't mention, ladies and gentlemen, about the dwindling numbers of spotted owls? You guys remember the story on this two weeks ago? You know what's happening out there. There's a predator owl out there called the barred owl, and pardon my French, but the barred owl is kicking the ass out of the northern spotted owl. And they're intermingling and mating with them. So you've got the north sparred bowel -- or owl, or whatever. So these big barred owls are coming in there. They're taking over. They're wiping out some of the spotted owls, but this story doesn't mention that as one of the reasons why there are dwindling numbers of northern spotted owls. (interruption) They're raping female spotted owls, exactly. If you're going to need an abuse billboard anywhere, put it out there in the Great Northwest forests to get these barred owls to stop picking on the northern spotted owl.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Speaking of this Tahoe fire, I forgot to mention this. They have a restriction out there that you can only cut timber, I think it's ten or 12 feet from your house. I'm not sure about the number. But, this guy broke the law. He said to hell with it, and he cut it 50 to 70 feet away from his house. His house is the one standing. His house is standing! A lot of his neighbors who followed these regulations houses have burned to the ground. Fire department people out there, fire experts have been warning not just in Tahoe, but in the El Dorado Forest, "You guys are sitting on a powder keg out here." But, you know, Dianne Feinstein and some other people introduced legislation to thin out some of these forests. The Sierra Club's been appealing it for ten years and holding it up. There are countless illustrations. It's just another illustration of all this do-gooderism, and, "(sigh) It's just so nice to look at those trees. It'd be so mean to cut them down. They have feelings, too, and of course what about nature and what about tourism? We love watching those trees. They're so nice to look at. They're so pretty." Yeah, and now we're talking about the dead ones. Every one of these do-gooder, nice -- or motivated by nice -- ideas that the left have, every one of them is wrong. Every one of them ends up causing destruction, either to families or to property or the overall culture. It is not even arguable. Liberalism, among all these other things, is just destructive, under the guise of "being nice." Yes, being nice and compassionate and thoughtful and feeling good about yourself -- while everything goes to hell around you.


Hellbender
(member)
10/06/07 03:42 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate



Liberty
(member)
10/06/07 11:05 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you might as well post up just how wrong you are to support socialists, it's obvious you're a damn commie with no answers.

Or more likely a puss who knows his support of the national forests goes against every principle he claimed to stand for on this website.

You've mastered the Democratic argument HB, whatever you do, don't answer the questions, if you start to, be vague and attack your opponent.

You don't live out here and I now know you never lived anywhere near a national forest, you obviously lived in the middle of the damn Oregon desert in the southeast quadrant of the state. You support the government over your fellow citizens and believe in its supremacy to just force people out and off their lands either through fiat or inaction. Either way the results are the same and people's freedoms have been trammeled upon, all the while you support the wilderness act of 1964 that promoted the greatest myth of our time, that somehow man is not a part of nature.

what a jackass, I can't fathom why someone with the beliefs you have demonstrated in the forest debate doesn't just go ahead and believe in the boogey man SUV causing global warming, oh wait, I know you do believe it, you're just scared to admit it here, damn commie liberal


Hellbender
(member)
10/07/07 01:09 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate



Liberty
(member)
10/07/07 02:34 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

puss

Hellbender
(member)
10/07/07 03:10 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate



Liberty
(member)
10/07/07 08:03 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

typical democrat ain't got jack to argue, just defend the bureaucracy because it's the government and they mean well.

Hellbender
(member)
10/07/07 03:32 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Now that I have you on your knees, reduced to cutting and pasteing pictures, I don't want further embarrass you.

Liberty
(member)
10/07/07 06:33 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

whatever, how damn sad can an old man be, scared to defend the fact he is defending a failed bureaucracy for something as trivial as ensuring his kids have a place to hunt, I got news for you jackass, elk and deer don't live long when there ain't no food, and when the entire forest burns away you lose entire herds. Your argument is pathetic and weak. Embarrass, how old man? you haven't made a point in six weeks running around like a feeble old man trying to discern some idiotic microscopic point so that you can avoid pointing out your bullchit argument.

Hellbender
(member)
10/07/07 07:34 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Quote:

I got news for you jackass, elk and deer don't live long when there ain't no food,




Wrong again dumbass, the new growth gives them a boost. The Elk herds were the first thing to re inhabit the Mt ST Helen's area. Duh, they don't eat trees. Go wash the city dust off that Honda wannabe.


Liberty
(member)
10/07/07 08:41 PM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

"the new growth gives them a boost"--Hellbender

what new growth would that be HB, the stuff that comes around four to five years later when the soil recharges enough for cheat grass to grow? Nothing grows for several years after a firestorm, dumbass. Of course, you just blindly believe the "it's already starting to green up" reports from the forest service who pats themselves on the back for watching the entire forest go up in smoke.

the people who make their living off rich eastern dumbasses coming out here to hunt want the forest service to save the damn forests and to not let them burn all to hell, that ought to tell your stupid ass something


Hellbender
(member)
10/08/07 02:42 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Well according to information you posted, the Yellowstone Elk found enough sustenance to chase Beavers.

Dumbass.






Liberty
(member)
10/08/07 03:52 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

you're doing nothing but helping promote socialists as they drive people from their homes

Liberty
(member)
10/08/07 06:17 AM
Re: Clinton Health Plan and crappy looking '08 slate

Hellbender look here, a firefighter has brought the class war to forest fires and this is what you are defending. If a firefighter starts making value judgments about what he is tasked to do, I think he probably needs to be in a new line of work

from the fusee website. I think it's quite educational, the liberal view, the one you promote, rears its ugly head...

"Rural Idaho contains small communities and isolated homes of both poor folk and the ultra rich. Defending communities is one thing, but assignments to protect upscale trophy cabins and hobby ranches are not what most wildland firefighters imagined they would be doing when they enlisted. These properties are the vacation and retirement homes largely owned by corporate elites who make more money in a single day's worth of their Bush tax cuts than the typical ground-pounding firefighter makes in a whole season of hard labor. Firefighters will need to keep wildfire from igniting these isolated properties of Idaho's rural rich and poor because when that stuff burns it?s bound to be a toxic smoke that fills the air.

Its stereotypical but true: many rural Idaho residents are rightwing anti-environmentalist/anti-government types who would much rather be left alone?until a wildfire ignites and then they expect Uncle Sam?s firefighting army to come to their rescue. Some firefighters are starting to question why they are risking their health and safety for the likes of people who may scribble ?Thank You Firefighters? on a piece of cardboard but do little to defend their own properties or make firefighters? jobs easier, and in many cases, make their jobs much more dangerous."

Seriously, get involved in a new line of work, of course, he gets paid the same if he watches the fire or if he fights it.

Piss on them all, you just should live in a fairy tale utopia where nothing can possibly harm you ever. That's what he's saying oh and that he hates the fact that someone makes more money than he does.

America is a land of opportunity, get another job.



Contact Us Return to Main Page

*
UBB.threads™ 6.5