Just a Number

“To teachers I’m just another child”.  Can anyone not relate to that thought?  Seger has a gift for taking thoughts we’ve all had, putting them to paper & music and somehow they become profound.  An article on school bullying got my attention.  The CDC has done another study & there are dots we can connect.  Is that reporter speak for, I’ll tell you what I think this all means, don’t bother to read or research it for yourself (or to have an independent thought)  Unkind & maybe undeserved, but my read on this is a shift & emphasis on guns & school shootings.  “Bullying victims are sneaking hundreds of thousands of firearms, knives and clubs into U.S. high schools”.

 Direct from the CDC study:

School associated violent deaths are rare.1

• 17 homicides of school-age youth ages 5 to 18 years occurred at school during the 2009-2010 school year.

• Of all youth homicides, less than 2% occur at school, and this percentage has been stable for the past decade.

In 2010, there were about 828,000 nonfatal victimizations at school among students 12 to 18 years of age.1

Approximately 7% of teachers report that they have been threatened with injury or physically attacked by a student from their school.1

In 2009, about 20% of students ages 12–18 reported that gangs were present at their school during the school year.1

In a 2011 nationally representative sample of youth in grades 9-12:2

• 12% reported being in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months before the survey.

• 5.9% reported that they did not go to school on one or more days in the 30 days before the survey because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school.

• 5.4% reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or club) on school property on one or more days in the 30 days before the survey.

• 7.4% reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property one or more times in the 12 months before the survey.

• 20% reported being bullied on school property and 16% reported being bullied electronically during the 12 months before the survey.

OK, it’s not the reporters fault.  I am an @ss, quick to judge & frequently wrong.  I seem to remember President Obama assigning the CDC to study school shootings/violence.  It’s hard for me to look at this “study” where a

gun=knife=club.  In what world are they equal?  The CDC wants to talk about mass/school shootings.  Problem, the numbers do not help their cause.  My guess only, since they didn’t publish numbers of guns, knives or clubs separately.  I think they lump them together to inflate their hype on guns in schools.  According to the CDC, there are around 50 million students in K thru college.  There were 828,ooo instances of reported victimizations, ages 12-18.  Statistically, any school student is very safe.  Reality, as always, is not the same.

 “20% reported being bullied on school property ”  One/fifth of students are bullied in the survey year?  And this is after years of increasing anti-bullying laws, rules and soap box promises that politicians would END bullying & school violence once & for all!  But they haven’t fixed it, after all these years and studies and money spent.  Why can that be?  How can this keep happening?

Maybe because they don’t actually want to “fix” the problem.  The Obama administration/CDC is interested in promoting gun control.  This does not mean they want or support school shootings, but consider their efforts on bullying and compare it to energy spent on gun control.  Seems oblivious they only want to treat the symptom, not “cure” the cold.  There could and likely are other factors.

They have done studies on gun violence that discredit nearly every liberal talking point.  When the numbers are displayed broken down by neighborhood, not state, an overwhelming fact emerges.  There are no violent states, just small, violent area’s.  A correlation  between low income/gangs can be indicated, but again, who would want to cure a cold if they made their living off repeatedly treating that illness.

By the same token, are all schools violent?  Are all failing to stop bullying?  Or are some inner city schools overwhelmed?  What are the chances of a school in any of those violent neighborhoods being an oasis from gangs and violence?  Are those same schools heavily unionized?  Those are topics this administration does not want discussed.  Hence a “study” that leads to their desired conclusion, or at least, talking points.

Some personal experiences.

I attended a concert years ago.  The show was ruined for me & hundreds by three obnoxious drunks shouting over the music.  Several of us complained to several city police officers.  They nodded and did nothing.  I was sorely tempter to attack and fight them.  Frustrated beyond belief that the police would not do their job, but had I acted, I would be arrested, possibly sued by the drunks.

A friend was called by the school years ago.  His son was hurt & needed to be taken to a doctor.  His son had a broken jaw.  Broken by a bully he had been complaining about for a while.  The bully sucker punched him outside the gym.  The bully was suspended for ten days.  The school did not call the police or an ambulance.  My friend did call the police, who were reluctant.  He ended up having to sue in civil court for damages.  Bullies are not expelled because of the thousands of dollars in funding they bring to the school.  Expel them & another school gets that funding.

Three or four years ago, the high school my kids are now attending had a bullying incident.  Three, black, Sr high girls severely beat a black, Jr high girl.  We were very interested in how the school would handle this incident.  We were considering switching to a private school.  We never could find out what was done.  Must protect a child’s privacy, we are told.  But then, college’s are very secretive when it comes to campus violence.  I understand no school wants a reputation for violence, but what about the public’s right to know?

Would you knowingly send your daughter to a school with a high number of rapes over the years?  How can colleges keep such secrets for so many years?  It seems to me there is a lot of money spent on education.  We hear tuition costs are jumping at headline making rates.  And all school loans now go thru the federal government and are exempt from bankruptcy protections…..

My how I’ve jumped around….but there is a concise thought & conclusion.  Schools are an artificial environment created for educating our young in a group of similar age.  Since this environment has been taken over by central government control it has been on a path to failure only staved off by diminishing results, standards and accountability.  Government does not cause this, but creates the environment where failure thrives.

Pity the students trapped in public schools being bullied and ignored.  Can any of the bureaucrats presiding make them or us believe they aren’t just numbers….


Feel Like A Number
Words and music by bob seger

I take my card and i stand in line
To make a buck i work overtime
Dear sir letters keep coming in the mail
I work my back till it’s racked with pain
The boss can’t even recall my name
I show up late and i’m docked
It never fails
I feel like just another
Spoke in a great big wheel
Like a tiny blade of grass
In a great big field
To workers i’m just another drone
To ma bell i’m just another phone
I’m just another statistic on a sheet
To teachers i’m just another child
To irs i’m just another file
I’m just another consensus on the street
Gonna cruise out of this city
Head down to the sea
Gonna shout out at the ocean
Hey it’s me
And i feel like a number
Feel like a number
Feel like a stranger
A stranger in this land
I feel like a number
I’m not a number
I’m not a number
Dammit i’m a man
I said i’m a man


And this is a decent article with links.  My main gripe is him going along with the CDC narrative without question.




  1. It is a government school phenomena.

    Unlike private school (or home school) – where the customer is the parent/student, since they pay – the government school’s customer is the government, not the parent or student.

    By expelling a student, the school loses the funding for that student. Hence, bullies are not expelled. The parent can complain all they want in private, but the school’s customer does not care why a kid is expelled – no kid, no money.

    The way to force a school to act is to bring ire upon the administration – public embarrassment.

    Political bureaucrats do not like being publicly called out – do not like those that “make waves”. Only by constant embarrassment of a bureaucrat will you motivate them to act, since their superiors do not like reading about government blunders in a newspaper – it attacks their legitimacy.

    I have repeated this many times – all government action rests on legitimacy. When this legitimacy is threatened, only then will you get government action.

    Threats of legitimacy are often done by criminal action – and Bundy ranch lately shows the government response – threats to government law are met with overwhelming government violence – not because the crime may or may not be humanly destructive, but because it threatens government law legitimacy – if government makes a law and no one follows it, what’s the point of government law?

    But most do not see this consequence of threat of legitimacy upon government following its own law. If government does not follow its own law, and no one cares, government action is not undermined.

    But threatening exposure of the failure of government broadly in the eyes of the public absolutely threatens legitimacy – and government will act to restore that legitimacy.

    BUT IT MUST BE PUBLIC and EMBARRASSING to government to act.

    • gmanfortruth says:


    • The best understanding of government’s need for legitimacy is government’s reaction to vigilantes.

      A vigilante will rise up out of the people in response to lawlessness damaging such a society and the government’s reaction will always be: “We must stop the vigilante !”, not “We must act more strongly against the lawlessness”.

      The vigilante is the single greatest threat to government legitimacy; an internal “4th Generation Warrior”. His existence demonstrates that government is unnecessary, hence is the greatest threat to government – and not the perpetrators of the lawlessness that gave rise to such vigilantism.

    • The US Department of Education eyeing Texas private schools. Private schools are fast approaching those of public schools in number, The problem, according to the government, is that all that is being left in the public schools are the bully’s, the thugs, the druggies, and the violent ones. Additionally, the best teachers are going to private schools not necessarily because the pay might be better, but because they are safer and they can teach and not be a baby sitter.

      Private schools can be very selective. Admit whom they want without recourse. The US Department of Education is thinking about trying to bring private schools under their control. They claim discrimination because minorities are not being admitted to private schools. This is not true as there are plenty of minorities admitted provided that they meet the criteria for admission. There are no public buses and transportation is the responsibility of the parent. There are no food programs for private schools….bring your own lunch or buy a lunch at the cafeteria. The following quote is direct from the Department of Education of our illustrious United States….

      “The potential benefits of private schools accrue from their independence. Private schools do not receive tax revenues, so they do not have to follow the same sorts of regulations and bureaucratic processes that govern public schools. This allows many private schools to be highly specialized, offering differentiated learning, advanced curriculum, or programs geared toward specific religious beliefs. Therefore, we believe that this creates an unfair advantage to minorities.”

      It seems to me that they HATE the idea of selection and they do not understand why the test scores and college admission rates of private vs public schools is so widely varied. Private and home schools are beginning to outpace the public schools.

  2. http://www.myfoxny.com/story/25417945/citizens-post-their-own-traffic-signs

    Government is shocked the people can take care of themselves, hence, actively removes the signs.

    • This is really cool…tactical urbanism. The citizens taking projects on their own to create a better flowing community. Ironic though that it could almost be called, ugh, community organizing! A liberal cause in a sense. But also a gut check to local politicians that people are capable of organizing without them. That’s a conservative principle. Is it possible that there is common ground between the groups? That seems to be an impossible thought these days. Sometimes I guess, it’s just hearing a new word that opens up a whole new train of thought. This idea, tactical urbanism, needs to spread. It would go a long way towards reaching the goal of more limited government. I googled it, there are lots of cool projects going on around the country, making communities more united. That’s a good thing.

      • Trust me,, there are causes that liberals, conservatives, communists and Hari Krishna’s can all wrap themselves around. NYC parking signs are designed to drive one insane.

        Surprisingly, same goes for crime. Once a neighborhood starts attracting criminals there is a threshold point where Civil Libertarians tend to grow steadily more silent, at least until the problem calms down. For example, you never really heard very much across the board about Stop and Frisk. Once crime rates dropped to pre 1960 rates, suddenly, it was an affront to your liberties. Unfortunately, in a few years we will be back where it all started.

  3. Just A Citizen says:


    This week there have been TWO major reports issued about how devastating Global Warming is becoming and how we “still have time to prevent the damage”.

    In the same week Podesta reveals his view that Congress can NOT stop Mr. Obama from doing what he wants on the Global Warming front.

    Coincidence?? I THINK NOT.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Podesta is trying to piss off the Right Wing to take attention away from Bengazi. It won’t work, the people want the truth to come out about the gun running cover up

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Podesta is NOT trying to distract anything.

        The Administration has been waiting to pounce on the Global Warming initiatives.

        It is now the one remaining potential “historic legacy” for the Obama white house.

        This has been in the works since day one. They could not make the move until after his re-election.

        Make not mistake, these are not deliberate “distractions”, they are all part of the deliberate “remaking of America”.

    • Congress can stop it….if it has the balls. Control the checkbook. Have some guts and quit funding this sham of global warming…..it is a myth and I think everyone knows it…..well, most everyone.

  4. Just A Citizen says:

    More ORWELLIAN Speak by Democrats and their puppies.

    Congress is trying to pass legislation to link funding for science research on cost/benefit and societal needs. The Dems and Science community are screaming that this amounts to “inserting politics into science”. Yep, using TAX funding for their stupid research ideas, which are selected by the science community itself, is somehow NOT inserting politics but holding them accountable is inserting politics. One quote from the story:

    “In recent weeks, the Obama administration and science agencies have — in less-than-subtle terms — offered up similar criticisms of the FIRST Act. At an American Association for the Advancement of Science forum on Thursday, presidential science adviser John Holdren said he was “concerned with a number of aspects” of the bill.

    “It appears aimed at narrowing the focus of NSF-funded research to domains that are applied to various national interests other than simply advancing the progress of science,” Holdren said. ”

    Got that???

    The SHEEP are supposed to simply fund the “progress of science”. DO NOT COMPLAIN or you will be deemed ANTI SCIENCE or perhaps a SCIENCEPHOBE.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh this is going to be great fun. Get the popcorn. Time to watch the Progressive Dems wage their WAR ON WOMEN…………or should I say WOMEN who don’t tow the line!

    “Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”

    After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)””

    Anyone here at SUFA really doubt what that “cost” might be or who is going to do the billing? Or should I say hillaring????? Bwahahahahaa

  6. Another terminally stupid gun owner. Got a proper penalty for him. Russian Roulette. If he survives three, he walks, if he does not, well then, problem solved!

    Despite the “Daily News” ignorance of anything West of the Hudson River, the event happened in Pennsylvania!


  7. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh, my sides are hurting from laughing so hard. Sorry I find humor in such IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE. Must be in one of those moods.


  8. And then Nancy Pelosi crying in her beer…….wailing about the fact that the Benghazi committee is not going to contain an equal number of democrats and republicans….wailing how one sided it will be…..when asked why there were not equal republicans on the Obamacare committee when she had control…..her retort was…..”we are not talking about Obamacare, we are talking about Benghazi”.

    And the hits keep on coming.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    More cracks in the Messiah’s Armor:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A unit run by President Barack Obama’s political staff inside the Environmental Protection Agency operates illegally as a “rogue law enforcement agency” that has blocked independent investigations by the EPA’s inspector general for years, a top investigator told Congress.

    The assistant EPA inspector general for investigations, Patrick Sullivan, was expected to testify Wednesday before a House oversight committee about the activities of the EPA’s little-known Office of Homeland Security.

  10. What Floyd Mayweather Tells Us About Manhood And Abortion
    Amy Otto
    By Amy Otto
    May 6, 2014

    Recently Floyd Mayweather publicly broadcast his sadness that his ex-fiancé had aborted his unborn twins. While I know little of the back-and-forth gossip going on here, my heart broke for this man. There was something about a man whom I only knew as a boxer, speaking out in defense of his children, that got to me. Was it personal business? Yes. Was airing it in public not the best option? Probably true. Is it right not to involve a man in a decision like this? No.

    A boxer standing in opposition to “killing babies” is an apt metaphor. Men, while capable of brutish violence, channel that effort best into protection of others. Men at their most heroic save lives, fight wars, die for their country, or even patiently smile through tea parties with their daughters. The boy inside the man has always wanted to do right. That is, until women told them that they don’t need their help, their opinion, their love, their care, or protection. From “don’t hold that door” to “don’t think you deserve to be a part of your child’s life,” the message is clear. Go away.

    Women lament very often that men have changed, wondering, “Where have all the good men gone?” They falsely attribute it to women outpacing men in education or moving into the workplace. Notice, despite a long period of economic success by men, there never once was a movement to tell women they weren’t needed. Even when they joke, men realize they know better.

    Lloyd Dobler: I got a question. If you guys know so much about women, how come you’re here at like the Gas ‘n’ Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?

    Joe: By choice, man.

    That’s from Cameron Crowe’s 1989 romantic comedy “Say Anything.” John Cusack’s Lloyd Dobler didn’t believe that his interest in “smart girl” Diane had any negative impact on his ambitions. This isn’t an anomaly for men. Take an early American example such as Abigail Adams who, while technically a “homemaker,” ran an entire farm not a carpool. Cooperation, mutual admiration and the resulting benefits are the hallmarks of the best male female partnerships. Moreover, who was engaged in the classically “manly” activity here? John Adams, who wore pretty wigs while spending a lot of time getting in cat fights with Thomas Jefferson, or Abigail, running the farm? No, good men aren’t going away because women “work.” Women have always worked. Men, however, are listening.

    The good men are going away, because women tell them they aren’t needed. In fighting for “equal rights,” women forgot about the huge reservoir of power they’ve always had. Spending time shaming men who want to protect the life of unborn children is telling them to value neither women nor their children. To later lament that men have stopped stepping up only when it’s convenient for women is to ignore their complicity in developing a society that has told men to sit down and shut up. Whether men are supposed to “check their privilege” or nod their heads along to the daft idea of defying gender norms because “shut up” or remain silent when their own child is threatened, eviscerating their honor and protective instincts is leaving men rudderless and without ambition.

    Men crave a protective role in women’s life. They want to be seen by a woman like they saw themselves as a boy: a protector, a savior, a hero. Women who refuse to cede this space to a man are doing so out of fear not confidence. Relationships are not a zero-sum game or reductive job description waiting for the perfect applicant. Even in this latest dust up over the confidence gap, it’s shown that it’s women who downgrade themselves — not men. Maybe it’s not just men listening when women are told to discount their power to bring life into the world, to consider it a hindrance, a weakness or source of shame warranting a violent act to remediate.

    It’s been such a frequent rejoinder in abortion politics to demand “choice” that people have ignored what that message of choice means to a man. Men were told to treat sex as transactional, inconsequential, and, worse, to step back from its natural consequences. Women get angry when they see any man dare say he is pro-life. It’s a strange thing to shame a man for seeing a little baby and thinking it deserves protection. Even more dissonant is the woman who can’t recognize this viewpoint isn’t to dominate her, but recognition and respect for the power women uniquely have.

    You will never, ever see a man admire a woman more than the day he meets the child they made together. He’ll be humbled and awed all in one shot. Grant him that space to honor and protect life.

    Men today are being told to not be heroes, but they all start out wanting to be. An 8-year-old boy this past week died defending his older sister from an attacker. He didn’t run or stand down. He did what men all start out wanting to do: protect life. Next time you find yourself asking “Where have all the good men gone?”, it might be time to remember what makes a good man.


    • Black Flag® says:

      Remember the root cause: it is not “Women’s Rights” – but government loot.

      When the government replaces the man as the provider of safety and resources, women chose government – don’t have to deal with a human being, just a faceless bureaucrat that doesn’t leave his socks all over the place.

      The rise of the welfare state has created a society where women see a man’s provisioning as redundant – hence, men (in their minds) are redundant.

      What is lost is vast. It is MEN who have achieved everything that advanced civilization delivers – all its goods (and all its “bad’s” too). But the goods vastly out way the bads.

      In post-pubertal IQ, males have only a small advantage in mean IQ, perhaps because of their slightly larger brains or perhaps because it is an artifact of testing.

      What is not debatable is that men have higher variance in intelligence, meaning a broader range of scores—i.e., there are more very smart men than women, and very stupid men than women. T

      The math predicts that at two standard deviations from the mean, IQ 130, there should be two men per woman. Checking Mensa membership by sex (Mensa requiring 130 for membership, the top two percent) we find—who would have guessed it—that the membership is 66% male.

      Two to one.

      Who invented the following?

      Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Algebra. Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Almost every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.

      The loss of replacing men with government will be devastating.

      The age of Endarkment creeps closer.

  11. I read this woman’s article- and it was painful. I really wish, I could dismiss this as just the actions of a truly immature, selfish, and extremely STUPID individual then I could at least have some pity for her and hope that she matures as she ages. But this is the basic attitude the abortion pushers are trying very hard to establish in our society about abortion.

    Yahoo! I Had an Abortion!
    By Wesley J. Smith
    May 5, 2014 7:14 PM

    So, an abortion clinic counselor doesn’t use birth control and gets pregnant. It’s termination time! And she filmed it.

    It was, like you know, such a positive experience! From, “Why I Filmed My Abortion,” in (where else?) Cosmopolitan:

    I remember breathing and humming through it like I was giving birth. I know that sounds weird, but to me, this was as birth-like as it could be.

    Except, the “birth” was to end life, not bring it to fruition. Otherwise, I see it. No diff.

    It will always be a special memory for me. I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab…

    Every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is.

    Ah. good times. Becoming irresponsibly pregnant and then having a birth-like experience of destroying a fetus–complete with pictures!

    Her bottom line message:

    I am grateful that I can share my story and inspire other women to stop the guilt.

    But you know, sometimes guilt is healthy. Sometimes there’s a reason conscience knocks on our door. Sometimes it’s the first step toward gaining wisdom. And forgiveness. Because some things are just wrong.


    • Black Flag® says:

      Take heart – such a person self-eliminates their genes from the pool.

  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. More of Obamacare hypocrisy……

    Most of you know that a year and one half ago,,,,,(18 months for those that comprehend)…I had a heart stent put in. Since then, I have been on a medicine called Brilenta. It is a blood thinner….one of the new kind because it reacts better than coumidin or wayfarin….under wayfarin, there is a requirement to take labs every 30-45 days. Brilenta eliminates the labs and only requires labs every 12 months. However, the cost of Brilenta is more expensive than Wayfarin.

    Well, the VA does not carry Brilenta nor will it pay for it so I have to go to the open market to get it. Since TriCare is being reduced, when I turned 65, I was forced on Medicare and purchased a supplemental health coverage from USAA to cover what medicare would not cover. Written into Obamacare were rules that force the military that is receiving care from the VA into Medicare….thus eliminating the VA for those over 65. So, the contract with veterans to provide medical care for life is gone now.

    Anyway…..long story short. Brilenta is not approved for prescription coverage under Obamacare nor the VA because of its expense…..so I go to Medicare part D…prescription coverage. The new Obamacare rules have eliminated over 30 medicines for aged persons under medicare….thereby, forcing people onto exchanges through private insurance for prescription coverage, Lo and Behold….under Part D of Medicare….there is no coverage for Brilenta…..HOWEVER…..there is coverage for Wayfarin, which is slightly cheaper but requires labs which adds expense. The total cost, under part D for Wayfarin is $65…for 15 days plus a $250 lab charge….or $315. The total RETAIL cost for Brilenta is $185 for a 30 day supply. You do the math. This is in addition to the premium for Part D…which very few people take because of the expense.

    So, now we have a government that controls Medicare….and Obamacare. To make the numbers rise for Obamacare, the government eliminates Medicare options and forces people onto Obamacare…..and then eliminates procedures and medicines for the aged because of cost. The government then charges you a penalty for not signing up for part D under Medicare, which you will pay for three years. The window for signing up for Part D has passed….so when the prescription coverage under private insurance expires and you are over 65 and you have to elect medicare part D, you are now charged a penalty for three years because of the missed window even though tou did not need part D at the time.

    So, as a military veteran that was promised life time medical at no cost…..is now a cost of $635 per month…..not including spousal unit…with no prescription coverage unless I go to the private market and that cost is medicare part a and b and supplemental coverage with a heart condition that is not supposed to result in higher costs ( Obamacare promise )….an existing condition that is not covered under the VA. In other words, the government writes its own rules and then does not follow them.

    For Mathius: You one asked me about death panels. What would you call it when a panel of non physician people make a determination on whether or not you get prescription or medical coverage? You do realize, don’t you, that the people making the decisions on medicines and procedures are NOT medically qualified.

    • By the way, when you go to the government website and read the rules for medicare a and b and part d…..it does not go into detail. What it says and what it does is totally different…..reality vs fantasy.

      • BY the way, since Texas allows consortium, I have applied for and expect to be accepted into a medical consortium here which has a private hospital with a staff of very qualified doctors ( my cardiologist is now on that staff ). Total cost for my self and spousal unit will be $485 with no deductible and 10% co pay on medicines.

  14. BF is correct…..the government is not our friend and never will be….and it wants total control over your life.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Careful Colonel, I was deemed a conspiracy theorist when I said the same thing a few years back 🙂

      • Ok…so you are a conspiracy theorists……”when the legend becomes fact…print the legend”

        (translation: Some would rather know the legend…Facts disclose the truth, some don’t want to know the truth)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          All it took was to take off the rose colored glasses and see things with an open mind. Flagster helped by giving me things to research and look deeper into, many years ago. It was quite a moment of time when the reality became clear.

  15. @ BF…..How is the arm, sir? ast you told me, you were living with it…..has it reached its full potential now?

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Wonder what our system would look like if we had this option? Chaos most likely. But interesting non the less.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      If a Democrat was forced to step down, chaos for sure. The Liberals would go batshit crazy and riot everywhere. If it were a Republican, there would be no chaos, maybe some peaceful protests, but overall it would not devolve into chaos.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Stumbled upon some political commentary on Charlie Rose’ show late last night.

    Two “experts” pontificating on Hillary and the upcoming Congressional and Presidential races.

    Two very key points were made, justifiably dripping with sarcasm.

    Polling overwhelmingly shows Americans want a “change in direction” from that being followed by Mr. Obama and the Dems. Got that? Somewhere around 65% say they want a change in direction.

    So in North Carolina last night the “ESTABLISHMENT” candidates won their primaries.

    And as of today, the PREFERED and FAVORED candidates of the two major parties for President are……………………………………..Hillary Clinton, and …………………………………………….. Jeb Bush!!

    Just in case anyone was wondering whether there was a disconnect between what the people say and what the people do when it comes to voting.

    The PRIMARY is where the People get their chance to most often throw out the establishment or existing power base. Yet they consistently return these people to office. All the while screaming for a “change in direction”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m often amazed about this, because people actually think it’s not THEIR politician that is part of the problem. Then again, we are assuming that the primaries are done legitimately. The last Republican Presidential primary was far from legitimate. I’m not sure any of them are. The monopoly on the election process continues and the silence will only lead to the slavery of the people (or sheeple). WE are well on the way too!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The elections are legitimate. Even with the corruption and fraud, local PRIMARIES would be the place to dump the “entrenched elites” if only PEOPLE would pay attention.

        I don’t know why you keep blaming the “system” and its “corruption” on your lack of choice.

        Lack of choice is because people do not pay attention and do not participate.

        Those who have become engaged are seeking out new thinking people to run. But unless the “majority” of those within a party wake up it will be for nothing.

        Lets take Nevada as the worst case. The vast majority, as in over 66% of Nevadans were prepared to send Harry Reid into retirement. Yet just because they had an offbeat candidate with little pull running against him, they opted for EVIL instead of salvation. And they KNEW IT WAS A VOTE FOR EVIL.

        Many told me directly that Reid would bring home the cookies, they would not give up the State’s POWER that was represented by Reid. Same goes for Montanans who keep sending Max Baucus to the Senate. The guy can’t think or talk straight. But he sits on powerful committees.

        It is a true conundrum.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I have challenged your views on corruption within the selection system and voting itself.

        So this time let me provide an example of how the Corrupt Establishment work to maintain their control. I say corrupt in that the proposed control is completely UnAmerican. That is it flies in the face of the original American Conept.


        Now the caveat is that We the People could still stop this if we participated. You see, the guy trying to drive the bus is selected by the Precinct and State GOP representatives, who are those people selected by their Precinct Voters and via GOP conventions.

        So ………………….. those who PLAY get to decide and make the rules.

        The real rift in the GOP came when Ron Paul supporters started taking over County and some State GOP committees. Not when the Tea Party started holding rallies.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          JAC, you didn’t need to respond to me on this. You believe it’s legit, I don’t. I can post link after link, as you can too! When most of the same old cogs get back in office, and nothing changes, you will claim the system works. Those rose colored glasses, like those that the Liberals wear, only see the rosie color, not the reality. Enjoy what will likely result in NO real change, the next election. Should be fun to listen to all the newcomers who think they can change D.C.. Just like all the newcomers 30 years ago. History repeats itself, over and over. 🙄

  18. gmanfortruth says:
  19. Very interesting fact that just came out from the CBO…Obamacare is big business’ best friend….earnings went up and will go up for the next three years due to the fact that big business will simply drop health coverage and pay the penalty. Far cheaper. In addition, there will be fewer jobs and for the first time in US history, including the so called great depression, more business’ went out of business than there were new start ups and the CBO says that this trend will continue. The CBO said that it is cheaper to start up in other countries and pay shipping than it is to have a business in the USA. It further stated that Obamacare is having the opposite impact……costs are increasing, insurance rates are higher, there are less services…….AND…..emergency room visits have increased 400%.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      @Buck, Still support the ACA?

      • G – as I’ve long said, there are major problems with the ACA, but it is a step in the right direction. So yes, overall, I am a supporter, but recognize that further changes are needed. Not to mention, hopefully these problems will push us closer to a single payer system…. 🙂

        Though to some of the colonel’s points, he knows full well that these business trends have been going on for quite some time now and you can’t just drop everything at Obamacare’s feet.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yep, great idea. Let a group who can’t get a shopping website to work right handle all healthcare. 🙄

          No, it’s not all of Obamacare. But if even one job is lost, it’s too many: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/report-one-obamacare-tax-could-cost-up-to-286000-jobs/

        • Howdy Buckster……actually, this is not exactly true. Business trends have not been spiraling downward….the facts do not support that. We, as a family, never would have dropped our employees had this not been put into place. We prefer to have employees for control purposes but it is not cost effective. It was far cheaper to form a holding company, set up three new companies as stand alone c corps, and have contract employees. The caveat to that is we do give up some control of independents but we avoid all the increased taxes that went with having employees….not to mention the social aspect. I would imagine that in your own situation, you are not an actual employee but a partner paying your own self employment taxes or you soon will be.

          We have way too much cash on hand but it is not feasible to invest at this time. Increased capital gains taxes, medicare surcharges, and increased corporate taxes does not make it a wise decision….unless we invest in hard capital that has depreciation. But you already know this. We have made the decision to sit on cash and protect it in other way like moving it offshore. There is no incentive to invest it anywhere else. Costa Rica is a good place we are looking at right now but buying stocks in the US,,,,,,with the new taxes….nope,

          A single payer system will simply run cash out of the United States and make more and more business’ go overseas….unless you change laws that prevent this from happening. You are a tax person….you already know this. To counter act the drain to the health care system, there is no choice but to raise taxes…..higher taxes…more flight. Fortunately, I am of the age that the impact to me will not be too bad….but it will to my children and your children and grand children.

          Hell, it is even cheaper to move money to Mexico and pay their death taxes over that here in the US.

          • I fear you grossly overstate the situation and especially the correlation with Obamacare.

            Has Obamacare had certain adverse effects on business and investment decisions? Of course it has. But it is also a fact that many of the businesses laying off employees were looking for an excuse to do so (Obamacare creates a perfect scapegoat for this) – and I’m not accusing your family of doing this in the slightest.

            Not sure about your statement on the impact of a single payer system on business — single payer would remove health care from a business issue. Businesses wouldn’t be expected to pay for health insurance nor would they be penalized for a failure to do so.

            If so concerned about taxes, why not expatriate to Costa Rica? Sure you would have the exit tax to worry about, but clear sailing thereafter!

            • Has Obamacare had certain adverse effects on business and investment decisions? Of course it has. But it is also a fact that many of the businesses laying off employees were looking for an excuse to do so (Obamacare creates a perfect scapegoat for this) – and I’m not accusing your family of doing this in the slightest.

              Typical nonsense from a guy who has never run a business.

              There is no need for any business to look for an excuse to layoff anyone.
              “You’re fired” is all that is necessary.

              The fact, sir, is that such a program has turned the employees who are the margin of profitability into becoming unprofitable. Hence, they are let go.

              Do you really believe businesses fire profitable workers???

              Not sure about your statement on the impact of a single payer system on business — single payer would remove health care from a business issue. Businesses wouldn’t be expected to pay for health insurance nor would they be penalized for a failure to do so.

              It is absolutely a business issue. Again, because of a depth of ignorance about business operations, you make claims that are nonsense.

              Companies went to including benefits as part of compensation because of taxation – increasing an employee’s wages moved them into more severe tax liability and hence became little incentive for an employee to work to earn more money or promotions.

              By offering cash-less, no-tax, or under-taxed incentives such as benefits, companies regained in part a means to reward improvements in employee’s work.

              By attacking these benefits, it continues to undermine the businesses ability to reward top workers, hence, workers -by the law of incentives- decline to advance their workmanship.

              Whatever government touches, it destroys – the essence of violence in action.

              If so concerned about taxes, why not expatriate to Costa Rica? Sure you would have the exit tax to worry about, but clear sailing thereafter!

              Because he works in the US, moron!

              Why don’t you move to France and enjoy their heavy taxation policies that you support so strongly?

              • “Because he works in the US, moron!”

                Was that really necessary BF? Besides, if he were to move, either he can chose to retire or find work elsewhere. You are very quick to ask others to move from one state to another for a job, why not move from one country to another to avoid taxes?

                “Why don’t you move to France and enjoy their heavy taxation policies that you support so strongly?”

                I would absolutely be open to moving to France — Paris is a wonderful city with great food, great wine, and :::gasp!::: society actually takes care of its citizens…

                • Yes, Buck, it is. It is simply a moronic, irrational statement.

                  Why is “your” solution require him to abandon his home, simply because the problem “you” created interferes with him? It’s no different then saying “hey, you can always abandon your house if you don’t like us stealing your couch…”

                  Go to France, and eventually starve. If you believe you will continue to enjoy a standard of living whilst it is eroding fast around you… is naive.

              • Buck, I daresay that we spend more per capita to “take care” of our citizens but do not seem to get a bang for our buck (no pun intended). The taken care of citizens in France are not particularly happy with the level of taking care of they get and those footing the bill have showed over the past twenty or so years that they are a bit tired of doing the taking care of.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                SK, it all crashes when they run out of other peoples money. Liberals can’t seem to get that to sink into their thick skulls. 🙄

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Let’s see if the resident lefty can explain how this graph shows the “loss of the middle class”.

    Hint: It does NOT. It in fact shows the wide variation in the 50% of the population which makes MORE than the Median Wage.

    The one point which the left uses to bash the 1% are the two bumbs at the end of the graph. The highest two income groups. But this is a positive anomaly if you want income mobility. Because it shows an INCREASE in percentage of households making the most over the lower incomes just below.

    • JAC — I wouldn’t argue that this graph could be used to show a loss of the middle class nor a gain in income mobility. This merely shows data at a particular point in time. Who is using this particular graph to make this claim?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Nobody is using it that way. My point is that this graph enlightens or better informs the data used by those making the claim. It does NOT support their arguments that the middle class is “shrinking”, that it is being “destroyed” or that the 1% are capturing all the income gains.

        Median Income has gone up and down over time. The biggest reduction was obviously linked to the recession, yet post recession median income is still much higher than in say 1980. But the question of “middle class” status is the distribution of PEOPLE or households, above and below that median value.

        This graph shows a pretty normal and expected distribution above the median for 2012.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is the median income line, adjusted for inflation, since 1980.

        By the way, I think BF was right in challenging your claim that businesses were looking for an excuse to lay off people.

        Even if what you think were true it is not accurate.

        The ACA provided them a chance to pin the monkey on Obama and the Progressive policies. It did not create an “excuse to lay people off” , it simply gave them a “scapegoat” or more truthfully, an OPPORTUNITY to use the layoffs for propaganda against the left wing agenda.

        However, the impacts of ACA to business and healthcare choices is much greater than you seem willing to recognize. If you want Single Payer you should be for Complete Repeal of the ACA.

        • That chart also can’t be used to support your position. All it shows is what the median income is in each year. It doesn’t provide any insight into why.

          Since you and BF seem to be playing a game of semantics, let me rephrase — the ACA gave businesses an excuse to do what they had wanted to do and point their finger elsewhere to avoid any responsibility. Is this a very simplistic statement to a much more complex issue? Of course. But you know full well what I am getting at here.

          As to single payer, sure I would support the complete repeal of the ACA in favor of a single payer system. But the ACA remains a step in the right direction; an improvement (in certain respects) to what we had prior to the ACA. I do not support a complete repeal for a reversion to the old.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            From the discussion of the above data set:

            “Households are often divided into quintiles according to their gross income. Each quintile represents 20%, or one fifth, of all households.

            Household type is strongly correlated with household income. Married couples are disproportionately represented in the upper two quintiles, compared to the general population of households. Cross-referencing shows that this is likely due to the presence of multiple income earners in these families. Non-family households (individuals) are disproportionately represented in the lower two quintiles. Households headed by single males are disproportionately found in the middle three quintiles; single females head households concentrated in the bottom three quintiles.

            The highest income households are almost ten times as likely to own their homes rather than rent, but in the lowest quintile, the ratio of owners to renters is nearly one to one.”

            I was not arguing semantics. You clearly stated that they were looking for an excuse to lay people off. They were not. As I said, and you seem to agree, the got a convenient opportunity to lay blame on the ACA.

            Without the ACA they would have simply relied on “down” business cycles and the recession. But you may recall the politics was hot and heavy at the time. So everyone was spinning………..in circles……………….on both sides.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Oh, and the data I provided DOES make my point. You cannot have a diminishing “middle class” unless the median income is SHRINKIING in real dollars. Not when they use MEDIAN to describe the “middle”.

            WHY something is happening is irrelevant. If Half the people are making more and more each year and the curve show there is not movement of the distribution away from the median, toward the lowest income, then there is no “loss of the middle class”.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Graph of disposable income since 1960. Now this graph cannot be used to argue about “middle class” as it is the per capita disposable income. We do not know what the distribution is for the population within the data. But since it is similar to the median graph in its general climb, I think it reasonable to assume that dips in median shown during recessions does not impact disposable income/capita, as those with larger incomes are able to weather the storm. But to wash out the affect of the recessions their income in terms of “numbers of people” would have to be significant. Meaning the middle class is not being lost, destroyed, etc.


            Now for the Kicker………….. there is not such thing as “A middle class”. It is not defined and has no clear cut identity.

            • You are absolutely correct on one point — one needs a working definition of “middle class” first.

          • Black Flag® says:



            Only the business ignorant, who have some sort of need to look for the failure of their government programs, have to make up stories like this. “Oh, it not OUR FAULT we are screwballs, its merely business guys looking for an excuse so to make us screwballs look bad!

          • Black Flag® says:


            So your argument now rests “Well, what we got now is an total unholy mess, but at least we tried to fix the last unholy mess we created! So we must be going in the right direction


            • Absolutely wrong as usual BF. My argument is that, yes it is imperfect, yes it creates new problems to address and fails to solve all prior problems, but it is, taken as a whole, better than what was. Therefore, yes, it is (in my opinion) a step in the right direction.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                By what rational measure can you claim it is BETTER than what we had??

                The only way you can make that claim is to fall for the left wing propaganda and ONLY look at microsets of the population. And even there the claim fails for the most part.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Sorry, that question was obviously for BUCK not for BF.

                Although maybe BF has some specifics on why it is now WORSE.

                My WORSE is the absolute DESTRUCTION of the Constitution. That negative alone wipes any positives from the books.

              • Black Flag® says:

                From hell to hell is no measure of “better”, Buck.

                Of course, to the Statist like yourself, the thought of “oh, perhaps NO GOVERNMENT interference would be better” is inconceivable.

              • from the peanut gallery

                I think you just said the same thing BF said. 😉

              • We didn’t go from ‘hell’ to ‘hell’ — we went from the 7th circle of hell to the 6th circle…

                • Black Flag® says:

                  Your measure is bizarre. It is more expensive then ever, and less people are “covered”.

                  But to a Statist, that’s an improvement.

  21. NOw Buck…I know that you are not insinuating that because we choose to shelter some cash offshore, that is, somehow, unpatriotic? Naaahhh…I know you better than that. You deal with clients on a daily basis that want to shelter income and cash….you do it all the time….if I have your expertise correctly in mind. I do not need to expatriate myself to want to save money…..why don’t you do the opposite. how about supporting lower taxes and penalties so people in cash positions do not need to move cash…..

    Now, I do not think that you are coming from a moral obligation are you? Meaning, that we, as citizens, have a moral obligation to society to keep our money in country….. are you? I did not really think that you are a greater good person….meaning to sacrifice yourself for the greater good? I really do not think so. I hardly think that your clients want a counselor that is not fiscally conservative.

    Like BF said. as far as employees are concerned, an employer does not need an excuse to get rid of employees. That is easy to do. Just fire them. But, like us, we want employees. We want them because it is easier to control production and corporate aims. But, like driving a Peterbilt truck….it may be the best truck out there but if it is cost prohibitive, you do not keep the best for a loss. You get rid of the loss. I can lay the tipping point of the cost of employees directly to Obamacare (aka: ACA) and its regulations that are in effect and some that are not coming into effect for another year and two years. Notice I said tipping point…..the water was already up to the gunnels anyway….Obamacare was the wave that capsized it. The added penalties and investment taxes and increased personal taxes and increased employment taxes are just ridiculous. So, consequently, to save money…we look elsewhere. Do not want to but we did not build something to throw it all away either by making investments that do not give us a maximum return on our dollars.

    In Business, and I know you understand this, we develop proformas and we make the best decision on these proformas. We develop long and short term proformas and plug in what we know is going to happen, likely to happen, and what is on the books. I have a full time person that does nothing but read and interpret the Federal Register and decipher all the upcoming rules and regulations that will affect business in the future. We plug these into proformas. Do you think the medicare surcharge of 3.8% is set in concrete? I am quite sure your law firm reads the Register…..to NOT do so would be incompetent. Investment tax income is going to rise under the ACA two years from now. This 3.8% is just a base….the new rules allow automatic increases at thresh-holds. Why would a cash fluid company, individual, or corp invest in something to give away 3.8% on top of corporate taxes?

    But anyway….as always…good to talk with you time to time. Hope things are well in your neck O’ th’ woods.

    PS: Send me a post card from Paris….you are right about one thing, good food, great sights…….it stops there.

  22. Started out this morning with a friend’s Facebook post about the minimum wage and some balderdash about how FDR wanted it to be a living wage. Got me thinking. 15 minutes later, I had, thanks to this wonderful internet research tool, come up with:

    Great opportunity for a quick analysis. Minimum wage in ’38 .25 cents per hour, forty hour week, $ 10.00 per week, $ 520.00 per year. Average individual wage in 1938 was $ 1,700.00. Therefore Minimum wage was 30.5% of average annual wage………Moving along to 2012. Minimum wage $ 7.25 per hour, or $ 290.00 per week. Average individual wage for 2012 was $ 40,563.00. Therefore minimum wage in 2012 was 37.2% of annual average wage…….Disclaimers. High income people may skew figures, SS & Medicaid taxes are much higher in 2012 percentage wise…….Counter Disclaimer, Average individual wages for 2012 DO NOT include any benefits paid to the lower end such as welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, Medicaid etc…….. Conclusion, at the worst case, things have remained the same. Best case, they have improved slightly…. Feel free to hold the applause.

    Still waiting for a response from my Commie-Pinko friends. Do not intend to hold my breath.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Notice how the Progressive’s rhetoric has not changed in 100 years. When all else fails, label your opponent as “reactionary” (FDR).

      For those non historians, the term reactionary was used to describe the pro monarchists in France who were also labeled “right wing”. The term was later used to describe the FASCISTS in an attempt to make the Communists look more appealing.

      • If reactionary were to simply imply one who reacts, I guess the reality is we all are to a greater or lesser degree once our side is not calling the shots. That is those who have half a brain anyway. It is like “progressive” meaning one who is for progress. I have always considered myself a “progressive” . At the same time it is easy to be a conservative meaning one who believes in saving and protecting things of value and not making changes either for the sake of making changes or not making major changes until one can demonstrate their benefit.

  23. Is there anybody here that believes Russia has moved from the Ukranian Border?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      NO, but the ERC needs a cover to crush the dollar, WWIII should prove efficient for just such cover. Will nukes fly? Maybe a couple, but just enough to scare the shit out of everyone so they bow to government. Conspiracy theories are quite scary, Yes? 🙂

      • Well you better believe it…..Putin said so.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          That should keep the MSM on the story, the other stuff don’t matter because they (MSM) don’t like the fact that Putin makes Obama look like a little pussy, which of course, is what he is, a MFing sissy.

    • Blackflag says:

      Depends on your definition of “how far did they move?”

      We retreated … 6 inches…. 🙂

  24. Also, I onder why we suddenly give a damn about 300 missing and kidnapped girls in some obscure country in Africa, which has been doing this for decades…..and we ignore the 700 per annum girls and women kidnapped and forced into prostitution from Central America and Mexico…..stuffed into 18 wheeler vans….moved across the border into the USA?

    I wonder why we are not pissed off and sending support to Mexico where they found the graves of recent girls kidnapped and murdered buried on a ranch outside of Juarez. That figure is 900 plus so far and more to be found. I wonder why human trafficking among the tribes of Africa is more important than the human trafficking at our border?

    Is it because we do not wish to admit that the border is not secure and that there is an appetite in the US for young girls under the age of 18? Is it because there are whore houses in Tijuana, Juarez, Piedras Negras, Reynosa, and Matamoros where the average age of the prostitute is 15? Do we not want to admit that these things are happening within 1/2 mile of our border? And there are men that will cross this border to have these under age women.

    So we are sending logistical support and it will turn into troops….for….distraction and headlines to show the world we care?

    I will be glad when October gets here…and I do not have to witness this any longer and it is getting harder and harder not to shoot these men, both traffickers and customers, on sight. Repulsive and sickening and this is the REAL world and not what the Progs want us to think.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Agreed and wonder myself. Maybe because it’s those in Government are profiting by keeping these young girls in chains. It’s not MSM for a reason, because the real culprits, the Liberals, likely run the show.

      • The reality of it is that they are Islamic groups….not radical groups, but well organized for extortion and slavery. IF you want to call them extremists, you can but I do not see any other religion doing this….in this day and time. The one thing that the media is ignoring is that….these are young black girls, kidnapped by black slavers, raped, extorted, ransomed by black captives…….and, according to the sources…..in numbers greater than anything ever recorded in history since the 17th century. Hundreds of thousands across Africa in 11 different countries.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          There is a reason why the Left Wing media won’t cover this. Sad times for Africans, sad asses in the MSM

    • Blackflag says:

      It boggles my mind – they are selling them at $12 a head – $3600 for the lot….

      Pay off the sons of bitches, get the girls, then wipe them out….

  25. Just saw the hearing on insurance rates and the new tax being put on insurance policies by the ACA…(Obamacare). The insurance executives are predicting a 100 billion dollar increase over the next ten years. They are also saying that insurance premiums will rise in 2015 and average of 28% and some policies some increases to the insured will rise 40%.

    When asked a question about the $2500 that was supposed to be saved for each family, each insurance executive was asked to raise their hand if there was even ONE policy that saved 2500….none did…..2000….none did….1500…none did…..1000…..none did. As a matter of fact each insurance executive that is running an exchange said….we knew there would be no savings and there will be nothing but increases next year.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Let me know when it’s time to shoot Liberals on sight. No different than human traffickers if you ask me.

    • And therein lies one of, if not the, biggest problem with Obamacare, and also why we need single payer…but I don’t expect anyone else here to agree with that…

      Charlie, where are you when I need you!???

      G – not going to even respond to that stupid remark…and you wonder why us liberals aren’t posting as often…sigh…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        None expected, basically, a conspiracy theory that it may happen one day 🙂 But for real, why would the Left be concerned with trafficking kids, they kill them everyday in abortion clinics 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Buck, I haven’t been on much lately and don’t expect to be on much in the future, so please post away, I like reading it, I have learned a lot about how liberals think without all the intolerance getting in the way. 🙂

      • Blackflag says:

        More economic illiteracy from our illiterate lawyer buddy.

        Why do you believe monopsony does not suffer the same devastating defects as a monopoly?

        • Blackflag says:

          Whoops.. too many “illiterates”

          Sorry, Buck – you are absolutely literate in language, but illiterate in economics, so a correction is necessary.


          More economic illiteracy from our literate lawyer buddy.

          Why do you believe monopsony does not suffer the same devastating defects as a monopoly?

  26. Buck, would you agree to a single payer system, where it is run by a private company and not the government? If not,,,,,why not?

    Would you agree to a single payer system not financed by tax dollars and the general revenue fund but by individual premiums and the premium being equal for everybody?

    Is there anyway you and I can find some common ground?

    Would a single payer system, under your guidance, do away with Medicare and Medicaid?

    Would you agree with a single tax, applicable to everybody on the same basis…for instance a 3 percent tax on everybody regardless of income earmarked for just that service?

    • Gman….Buck cannot really be that liberal….I just do not believe that given the business he is in…he believes in a single payer system….and I can actually get on board with it…IF AND ONLY IF it were equal across the board.

      • One other question, my yankee friend. Under your system, would you allow opt out for those that wish to maintain private insurance or would you ban private doctors or consortium.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        D13, I do wonder at times, about Buck and Mathius. But, it’s just wonder and I like to pull their chains a bit. Just as a funny, can’t shoot Liberals in the head to kill them, unlike zombies, because they are dead from the neck up, so shoot them in the ass. BWAHAHAHA! Just joking of course!

        • Neither one of them are stupid….and they have new children….I simply cannot believe that they believe that all this debt is good for them and I do not believe that either of them want taxes raised any further.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I would agree, and, I like both of them. Nice folks, it’s OK to have different political views, sometimes they take things a bit too seriously when I refer to Liberals. 🙂

          • Blackflag says:

            OH, D13, you have made a serious error in assumptions about Buck/Mathius.

            Their dogma and ideology transcends their progeny.

            All religious zealots exhibit this human phenomena where they impose their dogma upon their own children to the point of destruction of their children.

            If such dogma begins to destroy their children, they will simply transfer blame to their children’s little, innocent heads and blame them for not following said dogma “properly”.

            • I stand corrected by you and by Buck…however, I do see a hypocrisy in doing one thing for work and believing another….but who am I. But, as you said they are assumptions…..I have a hard time understanding how someone could advise a client on investments or tax planning and then believe in progressive taxes. But stranger things do happen.

      • Hate to tell you Colonel, but I am pretty damn liberal. Don’t confuse what I do for a living with my personal political views.

        On to your questions on single payer:

        1) run by a private company? I wouldn’t be opposed per se bit would need to see specifics.

        2) funded by individual premiums equal across the board? Once again, not opposed per se but would need to see specifics. Right now I would prefer a system financed by taxes and general revenue (remember I am for a progressive tax system) but send me a proposal. I don’t think we are too far apart on a lot of things, and as in past discussions on topics, we do tend to find some common ground in the end. I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true on this topic.

        3) do away with Medicare and Medicaid? I don’t see why we would necessarily necessarily need to keep these programs depending on how single payer is implemented.

        4) private insurance on top of single payer? Once again, the devil is in the details, but no I wouldn’t be opposed per se. I don’t think I would allow total opt out of the single payer system though.

        • Blackflag says:

          NO, Buck the devil is in the principles.

          You don’t have any from which to base your decisions – other then “what’s in it for me?”

          Such evaluation will be thus wholly superficial.

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    Lerner found in Contempt of Congress. So what, nothing will come of it. If I was in her shoes, jail time baby! But, she’s protected, she’s government and above the law.

  28. gmanfortruth says:
  29. Ok, Buckster….step one…….define single payer. We need to agree on definition first or anything else will be futile.

    This is one definition: of, relating to, or being a system in which health-care providers are paid for their services by the government rather than by private insurers.

    Another: Single Payer Health Care Systems cover everyone under a single, publicly financed insurance plan that provides comprhenesive health care. Having a single plan for the whole population also means there aren’t different provider networks for different insurance plans, and everyone is free to choose the doctors, hospitals, and community health centers they use.

    Any of these?

    • Step one is an important one; but I don’t have an answer for you. Both definitions seem to fit the bill.

      I believe the best option is more along the lines of the first definition – single system through the government. That being said, as I indicated yesterday, I do not have my mind made up as to the best means of achieving and would be open to alternatives…

      • ok….got it.

        • Colonel, looking back at past conversations you and I have been able to reach some sort of consensus on most things. I don’t see why this is any different.

          I’ve said it before and I’m sure I’ll say it again — Buck/Colonel 2016! Now we need a catchy slogan….hmmm…

      • But Buck, how do you know which one is “right” when you have no principle from which to measure what is right or not?

        Is your method holding your wet finger in the wind?

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    The Real Gun Violence Issue

    Take away the astroturf games like the so-called grassroots organization(s) that sprung up (by magic!) out of Newtown and you wind up with a truly ugly truth when it comes to gun violence in this country: Most of it is gang-related, most of the gangs are in our inner cities, and our President, along with the rest of the so-called “mainstream media”, simply refuses to address any of it.

    Take a recent shooting in Chicago. The media pictures of both shooter and victim are radically inaccurate measured against their own social media postings.

    The truth about that particular shooting? The gun, originally claimed to be stolen, wasn’t. It instead passed through a number of hands, at least one of them on probation and a second person who allegedly took the weapon to the shooter knowing it was going to be used to commit violence, a 30ish old aunt who allegedly went for the show (seriously!) someone who unjammed the gun after it malfunctioned and gave it back to the girl who had just tried to murder the victim but the weapon failed to fire.

    Nor is that all. We have another case where a “cute little charter-school graduate” (as presented by the family and the media) appears to have a bunch of social-media postings of her bearing weapons of all sorts, including a rather-large revolver that looks right out of a Clint Eastwood movie and a pump-action shotgun. Oh, and this angel apparently capped at least two people before being killed herself. She was 17.

    Are we ever going to address this instead of playing Astroturf games with kids who are drugged up on various psychotropic meds and then go insane — a rare but obviously far-too-common event?

    Probably not.

    Why not?

    Because our Black President won’t talk about it. Our liberal media won’t talk about it. And we won’t talk about it either, nor will we bring to the forefront the fact that we have essentially invented this problem out of whole cloth by generating a welfare and police state that empowers gangs by giving them the fuel (money) on which they rely.

    And how did we do that? We declared various self-destructive behaviors among and between consenting adults unlawful, generating an entire second economic system under the carpet that was then used to justify a “war” that we ourselves created and then declared.

    The result has not only been a monstrously-high prison population it has also been an explosion of violence, without which we would be far down the list when it comes to the abuse of guns and property crimes.

    Instead of admitting our stupidity in this regard just as is the case with the medical industry and its monopolist scams in the general case we have instead grown an entire industry around arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning huge numbers of people, most of them minorities.

    What’s worse is that we are also watching them murder each other with wild abandon, while we sit in our chairs and refuse to talk about the statistical facts.

    Indeed, if you take out black-on-black homicide in the major cities from our so-called “blood-red streets” that Bloomberg and others claim as our emblem of “endemic gun violence” you find that something like three quarters of all gun murders disappear.

    There is a basic principle when it comes to solving problems in the general sense, and it applies here as with most issues: 80% of any particular problem is easy to solve, and reasonably cheap. The last 20% is both expensive and hard.

    But we won’t talk about the 80% or how it gets generated. We don’t want to talk about the fact that we create these gangs by giving them an underground economy fueled by what appears to be an innate desire of man to addle his own mind, and which we can actually track back to the animal kingdom generally!

    In the early part of the 20th Century we allowed power-brokers who were trying to protect their own industries to play on now-documented racism and false claims when it came to various drugs, with the now-iconic Reefer Madness being one of the poster children for that era. We banned alcohol sales and created, almost overnight, an entire criminal class that shot up our cities and reaped huge amounts of profit from the desire of people to simply have a drink. The Depression effectively forced the end of Prohibition, but only for booze.

    Today we have the worst of both worlds. On the corner about two miles from my home is a store that has more forms of a popular drug in it than would be necessary to kill platoons of men, yet I can buy and consume as much of it as I desire. In the gas station and grocery store I can buy still other forms of the same drug, again, limited only by my wallet.

    At the same time in the nearest big city (and probably in my “nice” small town) there is a thriving underground economy. Police officers with whom I’m acquainted tell me of the crack houses they bust with crude labs that threaten to blow up entire buildings — not through terrorist action but rather because the “chemists” inside don’t know what they’re doing or don’t care because they’re too stoned to be concerned with reasonable safety precautions. The mind-altering substances they produce are addled with God-knows-what, the ingredient list likely driven by whatever is cheapest to get as a diluting agent so as to “stretch” what they’re producing for sale. Some percentage of those drugs, along with mass-produced quantities in Mexico and elsewhere, stream into our major cities where the trade in them generates huge profits and massive amounts of violence, all aimed at “protecting” the highly-profitable trade in same.

    Have we ever asked if the people who get hooked on meth and similar monstrously-destructive drugs would use them absent this pipeline of illegal supply and coercive sales capacity? If those people could walk into any pharmacy and simply buy whatever you wanted, having only to prove they’re of adult age, being supplied not only their drug of choice but also a pamphlet describing exactly what was in the package were buying and its expected long and short-term effects, would they? Would they rob and mug people if the price of maintaining their addiction was one tenth of what it costs today via illegal routes of supply?

    Or would they choose to try something else — perhaps a bottle of liquor or a pack of 20 Class A joints?

    I don’t know and neither does anyone else, but what we do know is that plenty of people were addicted to opiates and other drugs before the “War on Drugs” was launched, and a very significant percentage of them were able to hold down jobs and lead reasonably-productive lives. Oh sure, they eventually got sick and some died, but what we didn’t have was 17 year old kids shooting each other over insults, real or imagined, trumped up by what amounts to a trade war within our own borders.

    I understand why Obama, Rahm and Bloomberg don’t want to entertain this debate. If they were to do so with someone like me they’d be in a very tough spot, because I’d put facts and figures in front of them and the audience might conclude that we’ve created not only a prison industry and siphons off tens of billions of dollars, not only have we destroyed the earnings power of millions, most of them minorities with these same policies, but in addition we have a more than 50-year history that says we cannot win this war nor do we give a good damn about those who die as a consequence of our puerile and outrageous policy pronouncements in this area, most-especially the young people of color who are overwhelmingly both victim and perpetrator.

    Indeed, some people might conclude that our President and the rest of the drug-warriors are in fact racists of the highest order in that they’re complicit in the murder of far more black people in a single year than the KKK ever hung from trees through its entire sordid history.

    This much I’m absolutely certain of — our black community organizer-cum-President surely doesn’t want to face his rank hypocrisy on this issue.

    Nor, for that matter, do the rest of the so-called Progressives.

    • I’m not exactly sure what the point of this hit piece is. It’s not like Obama handed anybody drugs to ruin their life with. It’s also not Obama’s fault that addicts are addicts,or that they are violent.

      • Translation: ” It is the war on Drugs that has created the problem”.

        My opinion, Line from Linda Ronstadt song “Different Drum” , “You can’t see the forest for the trees”.

        Root cause, lowest common denominator, what has changed in 50 years? These are the questions that should be asked. While I will not disagree with the author on his specifics which are correct, we did have easier access to illegal drugs before the 1960’s but they were nowhere near the problem they have become. Even JFK and his wife and his cabinet were hooked on “legal” drugs but they were nowhere near the problem either. So having said that what are the things in society that have changed?

        My vote is for the breakdown in family structure as being the prime source for youth violence. When illegitimacy jumps from the 20% range to the 75% range, there are going to be problems, big ones. Even with that you have to walk it backwards, what led to the breakup of family structure?

        Well meaning welfare programs helped. They destroyed the need for families to stay together and in some cases made it impossible. The “do your own thing” irresponsibility fostered on the entire culture by the immature, over educated, experts and those “philosophers” and bards of the ’60’s and ’70’s our hip, with it, songwriters. The replacement of common sense by psychologists, educators and counselors, The failure to teach that there are consequences. The inability to grasp that there are blacks and whites in behavior, not everything is or can be a shade of gray. The inability to see that people were different and unlike lemmings act differently in response to the same stimuli.A warning about heroin may work for Johnny but not for his classmate and next door neighbor Bill.

        I could keep going all day but will stop here. We can fight among ourselves all day, blame the gun, blame the drug, blame the school, blame the overcrowding, the poverty, the lack of entry level jobs. Those are problems but they cause nothing for they are the RESULT of something much more basic. Nobody wants to hear basic, there is no money in it and you would have to basically disappear into the worm hole the last fifty or sixty years of Social Science.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Well stated conclusion. I have wondered if the plight of the “Black Community” is largely due to the fact it was not as “resilient” as the “white community” in the 60’s and 70’s.

          Thus it was not able to withstand, respond to and then survive the “counter culture” movement. Take away the cynicism, anger, violence and drug/sex abuse that was promoted and where would we all be today?

          This period affected everyone, but the white community was diverse enough, culturally and geographically, to withstand it. Perhaps the black community was not and thus it had a much greater affect on them.

          This is the only reason I can see that greater emancipation, created by the Civil Rights Movement, did not lead to greater hope and effort but to greater hopelessness.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          An analogy if you will, that fits here as well. We here the anarchist say it is HOPELESS to fight the system so you should simply withdraw and wait.

          Now apply that concept to the black communities of the 60’s and what do you get?

          Pent up demand for equality is not met immediately. So anger grows, then a sense of inevitable hopelessness takes hold. Eventually more and more people simply give in to the system and sit around waiting.

          Waiting leads to boredom and the need to “be somebody”. Then come the gangs and cartels to capture the young men who have innate desires to be “active” and “in charge”.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I think the purpose, which is badly stated, is to address the POTUS’s ability to control PUBLIC DISCOURSE on these issues. He does not use the “bully pulpit”, nor do his minions, to directly address this issue. Instead they focus on the mass shootings which they like to point out are done by “young white men”. The call everyone else who oppose their views “racists”.

        It is much like the violence occurring along the border which is ignored because it would upset the political goals and narrative. Mr. Obama could, and should, be leading the charge to secure our border from criminals. But instead he focuses his public comments on the “racist” and “insensitive” Republicans who want to harm innocent people who come here to work.

        Any way, that was my take on it. Along with the author has had his fill of Mr. Obama so he is venting his anger along with making a point.

        This plays in the very community being destroyed. The anger I see in the “black community” here in the Portland area seems high. Men and women walk around with an attitude and big chip on their shoulder. I personally believe that some of that is due to the rhetoric they hear every day about how “whitey” has undermined “their man”. This is not part of the article but something I see and feel is true. No way to prove it empirically.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I think the article said one very important thing. Basically , the democrats, who politically control all of the black crime infested communities and they refuse to address the real issues that cause this tragedy. Hence, I think it is quite clear as to WHO are acting in a racist manner. That’s one thing that hasn’t changed in the last 100 years or so, despite their idiotic claims of everyone else being racist. Want to fix the problem if black poverty and crime? Remove Democrats from all public office. 🙂

  31. Mathius™ says:


  32. Canine Weapon says:

    Colonel, I assume you know something about this..

    Throwing the first pitch

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Govt Health Insurance proposal.

    Make Medicaid the ONLY Govt health insurance.

    Create a Tax for Medicaid that is VOLUNTARY. Those who wish to support Single Payer are free to do so. The rest of us will pursue other options.

    Create a Fee for Medicaid for those who CHOOSE to access Medicaid. Govt bureaucrats can use their own actuarial tables to figure out the appropriate “premiums” to make up shortages if VOLUNTARY Donations are not sufficient.

    • “Those who wish to support single payer are free to do so”….kind of defeats the entire purpose of single payer….

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What is the purpose? To FORCE people to participate? I thought you were a flaming Liberal?

        Or don’t Liberals support freedom and liberty any longer?

        If you want a single “insurance company” then you can participate in the Single Govt program. Same for all the others that think a Govt MONOPOLY will address their health care needs.

        • Purpose is to provide health coverage and medical care to all. As I keep saying to the Colonel — there is no one size fits all approach and I am open to any and all proposals.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Regardless of COST?

            WHO decides what care is appropriate??

            • I will be going there JAC…..I am seriously wanting to compare the two……and I want to compare ethics and morality to any single payer system.

              • But first, I need to identify what single payer actually is…..and to quote Buck…we already know that there is no one size fits all. Where I disagree right now…..is the adoption of something is better than nothing. Quite often the cure is worse than the ailment.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Good morning Colonel. Addressing these issues will not matter to those who believe the goal is proper, no not proper but an outright NECESSITY.

                Once a person accepts the flawed belief that a certain thing MUST be provided or that people MUST HAVE IT, then all reason or rational arguments are made moot.

                Conflict one in the theory. The left rails against Monopoly as a means by which a company can gouge consumers. Yet they “believe” a Govt Monopoly will REDUCE the costs to consumers.

                This will all happen due to the righteousness of those working in the Govt,, apparently. Because I can see no other motivation to overcome thousands of years of REALITY when it comes to human behavior and the utility of Government.

                I forgot my manners.

                How are you this fine day? Two days of sun and now it is raining. Headed back to CDA the next two to three weeks to continue “home improvement” projects. Move is now set for MID June.

                Give your lovely wife my regards.

              • Single payer is admittedly a catchphrase. I do like your basic definition, but as you correctly point out, in the strictest sense of that definition, single payer doesn’t exist anywhere. But lets not play games of semantics once again on SUFA — we both agree as to the basics of what single payer is and (I am sure) both understand that by political necessity and reality the US will never have a true single payer system in that strictest sense.

                Would universal coverage be a more useful working phrase for you?

              • “we both agree as to the basics of what single payer is and (I am sure) both understand that by political necessity and reality the US will never have a true single payer system in that strictest sense.”

                Why ?

              • VH,

                What has happened to you lately???

                You are slowly slipping into the Black Flag side with excellent, poignant questions about other people’s open (and baseless) assumptions.

                Keep it up!!

                (PS: Don’t forget to use this upon your own assumptions, too… that is where you learn the most)

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        What, precisely, is meant by “single payer”??? That the government pays??? Thereby, the Government becomes the single (only) payer??? Is that what that means???

        But wait… where does the Government get money??? From taxing EVERYONE!!!

        Therefore, “single payer” is a complete, utter and total lie on its face, because in a “single payer” system, EVERYONE PAYS whether they wish to pay or not.

        Therefore, stop using the phrase “single payer”, because clearly it means the exact opposite of what it says.

      • Buck,

        Your economic illiteracy dooms you.

        You believe an economic good should be provided to whomever demands it, for free.

        You do not understand that this economic good, since it has no cost in consumption, but massive cost in provisioning, will be consumed to absolute exhaustion.

        Since price has been eliminated as a means to allocate this economic good in your system, to forestall its complete exhaustion your system will and MUST utilize RATIONING.

        In your system, decisions on access therefore will NOT be given to whomever demands it, either, but allocated by a committee who upon their whim will deliver goods to some and deny goods to others.

        It is this illiteracy of yours that does not understand at all what you are demanding; instead of a marketplace for goods, you create committees who ration by whim.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          BF, nice job, you just explained the ACA in a few paragraphs! 🙂

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Remember when some of us claimed that the next 20 years would bring changes that make the future unlike anything we now know??

    Well anyway, we are approaching some seriously challenging territory. How far do we go? Do we ignore the pitfalls and just forge ahead? Do the Humans of 300 years from now even look like us? Are they even “human” by our current definition?


    • Mathius™ says:

      Aye aye, captain! Full steam ahead!

      Well anyway, we are approaching some seriously challenging territory.

      Not for the first time..

      How far do we go?

      How far can we go?

      Do we ignore the pitfalls and just forge ahead?

      Some will. Some won’t. There will be mistakes and accidents and unmitigated disasters.

      Personally, I’d be surprised if we managed to make it through the next 100 years or so without wiping out 90% of the population (quite possibly inadvertently). But we’ll muddle through somehow.

      Do the Humans of 300 years from now even look like us?

      Hell, no.

      Humans 300 years from now will be massively different.

      They will have augmented biology (enhanced immune systems, increased stamina, intelligence, etc).

      They will be physically more varied (extra limbs, more variation in height/size, specialized configuration, artistically expressive designs, redundant biology (ie extra hearts), and more).

      They will be merged with computer technology (direct mental links to the future version of the internet, onboard telecommunications).

      There will be technological immortality insofar as your mind / consciousness will be backed up on a computer somewhere and, if anything ever happens to your body, they will simply grow you a new body in a lab and re-boot you from your last save-point.

      In fact, to that last point, I suspect that in terms of “looking like us,” they will probably change physical bodies all the time as desired (this is the body I use for work / this is the body I use for formal occasions).

      I suspect many people will even decide to forgo a physical body entirely and simply opt to live in a digital world.

      Beyond this, of course, is the possibility of deliberately altering their minds (think, uploading a program into your brain to make yourself a harder worker, or to give you new skills instantly, or make you funny, or more extroverted, or more patient).

      And then, also, imagine that eyes may be transformed to see other spectrums. Ears may hear higher pitches. We will add entirely new senses (EM, internal GPS, ecolocation, who knows?).

      Their memories will all be perfect with total recall and sensory playback on demand – and which can be sent out as a memory for someone else to download (imagine the market place such a thing would create! You could buy the experience of being in love, or experience being a celebrity). Or, perhaps, better still, you could delete bothersome memories (instantly and completely forget that embarrassing thing you did that one time.. or get over that girl you can’t get over by deleting the emotional component of your memory of her).

      I think the only thing about humans of 300 years from now” that could possibly surprise me is if they didn’t change dramatically between now and then.

      Are they even “human” by our current definition?

      Depends on your definition. I suspect that my definition is different than yours. If you’re going to go with something bland like “homo sapiens DNA,” then no. They will not be genetically “homo sapiens”.. at least not entirely and not all of them (though some probably will, of course).

      Me, I think a “human” is a being with a mind which thinks, feels, and processes in a roughly “human fashion.” Of course, how you might go about quantifying such a thing is beyond me. But if you took my brain out, replaced it all with circuits and reinserted it into a robot, I would still be “me,” and thus I would still be “human.” But, in this sense, no, humans 300 years from now, with their augmented intelligence and altered minds will probably not think, feel, or process in any way which I would consider “human.” Some will, of course, but most of them.. most of them will have moved beyond us.

      I can’t wait.

      • Two things…..did they serve ice with whatever you were drinking…and……………you still have not looked into your basement.

        • Mathius™ says:

          did they serve ice with whatever you were drinking

          Hell no. Ice dilutes the drink. I use whiskey stones. DPM recent gave me this fresh batch of amazing grog, said it was just for me. Come to think of it.. that was like a month ago.. wait.. where did the last month go? I can’t seem to remember anything after I took my first sip..

          Oh well, it’s probably nothing.

          you still have not looked into your basement.

          Look into my basement? Why would need to do that? DPM is safely locked up. I just check on him the other minute… or was it last month…? My head is so fuzzy.. I wonder why that is..

          Ok, I’ll go check, but I’m sure it’s all……..

          ::sirens blaring::

  35. Sedgewick says:
  36. I am determined to look at single payer realistically……..I will use one of the two definitions of single payer as I posted above….

    Now, in doing some research into single payer, I am not able to find a single payer system anywhere that fits the definitions. England, Canada, France, Sweden,,,,,none of them have a single payer system….so can anyone point me to one?

    • Next……single payer means, to me….ONE….not two….not alternatives….one and one only health care provider…..anyone disagree?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        TRUE, it means ONE insurance provider. Note that it refers to INSURANCE and not actual “Health Care” or “Medical Care”.

        So this ONE Insurance company must either be Govt or Private. It could be Federal or State run but if there is only ONE, it cannot be both private and govt.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        One other thing. Notice how the LEFT has once again turned the meaning of words upon their head in order to construct a nice “catch phrase”.

        Single Payer??? One company that pays or one entity that we must pay??

        What this really means is

        SINGLE PROVIDER ………….. one entity PROVIDES insurance.

        So if PROVIDER is the actual and true concept then why not simply jump to Single PROVIDER of Health Care itself???? Conceptually there is no difference. And thus the seed is set for a National Federal Health System which is the ONLY place where CERTIFIED doctors and nurses may practice.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Left Wing Fallacy

    “Only the Govt has the resources to deal with this problem”.

    Well the Govt has NO RESOURCES that are not TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE.

    So in REALITY, the PEOPLE have the resources needed to deal with any problem.

    The issue is not resources.

    The real issue is Political PRIORITY.

    Only via GOVT can an entity control the priority for acquisition of resources. Thus FORCE is required to establish the PRIORITY and then to carry out the COLLECTION of resources, then to organize and implement the STRATEGY selected by the “entity”.

  38. Ok Buck….I can buy Universal coverage and I am not trying to use semantics at all…..trying to avoid it. I do not want to get bogged down in semantics at all but want to seriously explore this. But using Universal Coverage really simplifies things because it destroys single payer….throws a whole new light. So……..I will amend to discuss universal coverage…meaning, everyone has access to medical services anytime that they want nor need it….Fair?

  39. @ VH…..you asked why…..the why is pretty simple actually. Single payer coverage means that there is only ONE provider and total control over medical services. It means that there will be NO private practice, NO private hospitals…..noting but one provider of all services. There is no such place right now….in this world that has this system.

    Where Buck is coming down is actually Universal Heath Care to mean everybody regardless of position has access to health services.

    • which is why I asked the question-why doesn’t anyplace have this system?

      And doesn’t everyone in this country have access to health services-isn’t this about insurance-which will lead to governmental control of heath services?

      I find your idea of trying to compare these systems a good idea will shut up now and let you proceed. 🙂

      • No, VH..you continue to ask questions…..you have an insight that I enjoy reading.

        • And I am not trying to compare them. this thing is such a political hotbed….both sides over look the forest because of the trees…….there is a solution but that solution does NOT NEED to be political.

          • For example, Buck and I have already agreed that a “single payer” per se……does not exist. There is nothing to compare it to……..so……we have agreed, or at least I think we have…to the term universal healthcare. It has a completely different connotation to it….and it is workable…………………Buck sees it as a moral/ethical obligation to “provide” health insurance/care for all. I see it differently…I do not see a moral or ethical dilemma at all….I do not believe that health care is a “right”…..I believe that healthcare is and should be voluntary and no one has right to it…it must be bought and paid for…..but the real issue is how. I think I have fairly stated our position.

            • Okay-perhaps you should start by defining Universal healthcare-perhaps I’m wrong but with universal healthcare we are no longer talking about insurance, we have jumped to governmental control of heathcare?

  40. Just A Citizen says:


    Is it safe to assume that you were not the poor fella that got et by da bar (ate by the bear for those in rio linda)!

    • No, it was a woman who got grabbed.

      It was at a sight 20 miles away from me.

      We’ve had bear issues in the past – one destroyed a building that held a lunchroom on a lay down pad. This is a dangerous time of year – bears out of hibernation, and are hungry.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Bears don’t eat robots. BF should be safe. 😉

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I have seen the results of bears trying to eat “robots”. It ain’t pretty.

        However, you are technically correct in that they will not “swallow”. They just chew the hell out of them, then knock them down the hill side.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Sometimes I think that letting our old friend get the hell chewed out of him and then knocked down a hillside might do him some good.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Memo to all those MSM networks groveling to apologize for portraying Cynco de Mayo as a drunken party. WTF are you apologizing for??

    From Wikipedia:

    “According to a paper published by the UCLA Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture about the origin of the observance of Cinco de Mayo in the United States, the modern American focus on that day first started in California in the 1860s in response to the resistance to French rule in Mexico. “Far up in the gold country town of Columbia (now Columbia State Park) Mexican miners were so overjoyed at the news that they spontaneously fired off rifles shots and fireworks, sang patriotic songs and made impromptu speeches.”[8][40] A 2007 UCLA Newsroom article notes that “The holiday, which has been celebrated in California continuously since 1863, is virtually ignored in Mexico.”[40] TIME magazine reports that “Cinco de Mayo started to come into vogue in 1940s America during the rise of the Chicano movement.”[26] The holiday crossed over from California into the rest of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s but didn’t gain popularity until the 1980s when marketers, especially beer companies, capitalized on the celebratory nature of the day and began to promote it.[41][42]”

    GOT THAT ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CNN…………. The BEER COMPANIES launched the MODERN celebration as a marketing ploy. That is it does in fact represent a “drunken party day”.

  42. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”

    If you claim to believe that the above is a great idea, please submit your job description, your salary (or wages), and a list of all of your worldly possessions to the committee. The following will then occur:

    1. You will keep your current position if the committee decides that it indeed reflects the best use of your abilities – if the committee decides your position does not best reflect the best use of your abilities, you will be reassigned.

    2. The committee will determine which of your worldly possessions actually reflects your actual needs. You will be allowed to retain those possessions which accurately reflect your actual needs. If, for example, the committee determines that your domicile exceeds your actual needs, your domicile will be downgraded appropriately to accurately meet (but not exceed) your needs.

    3. Your salary or wages will be adjusted to accurately meet your needs. Any excess will be taken by the committee and redistributed to meet the needs of others.

    4. Any excess possessions which exceed your determined needs will be forfeit to the committee and sold or used to meet the needs of others.

    5. All determinations of the committee will be considered final, and there are no appeals of the decisions of the committee. All decisions of the committee are binding and cannot be violated.

    6. You will not be allowed to attempt to acquire anything in the future which would exceed your actual needs as determined by the committee. If, in the future, you feel your needs have changed, you can request that the committee review your needs and make adjustments.

    7. The committee will review your needs every 5 years automatically and make adjustments as they see fit. Once again, all decisions of the committee are final and binding.

    If, after reading all of that, you do not agree with any (or all) of it, yet you still claim to believe that “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a wonderful idea, I have news for you! You are engaging in a very harmful form of SELF-DECEPTION, and even worse, you are most likely actively trying to foist this self-deception off on others as well!

    If, after reading all of that, you agree with all of it, and are willing to do it, GO FOR IT! At least I won’t be able to accuse you of self-deception if you actually go through with it!

    If, after reading all of that, you say, “I always knew that that was a really stupid idea, and reading all of that just reinforces the fact that it is a really stupid idea!” then GREAT! At least there is one important thing you can cross off of your list 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      ROTFLMAO………… well done Sir.

      I see your Global Warming/Climate Change/Contingency Plan is now the ONLY MAJOR ISSUE worthy of POTUS action.

      All this news being released that is in direct conflict with the information you and BF post here. Are you surprised???

      Report earlier this week claiming ANTARCTIC is melting at increased speed and the overland glacier will soon slip into the ocean, raising seal level by TEN feet or MORE.

      Was thinking of you as I read it.

      Hope all is well with you and yours.


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Everyone here is doing well, except my one-eyed cat who managed to escape the house a few nights ago and hasn’t returned as of yet…

        I am totally unsurprised by the so-called “National Climate Assessment Report”. It is a complete piece of fiction written by people paid to report exactly what the Pres. wants them to report, so if it had said anything else it would have been surprising – but it said exactly what I expected, so no surprise there!

        Antarctic Sea Ice is 1.55 MILLION square kilometers above average, and is a RECORD HIGH for this date since measurements started being taken by satellite in 1979…. The area with the fastest ice GROWTH is precisely the area which “climate scientists” predicted would be the fastest area of the Antarctic to MELT… so we see how well THAT prediction is working out!!! Current Antarctic Ice Area is WELL ABOVE 2 Standard Deviations above the mean, which, statistically, has less than a 0.1% chance of happening, so in “climate scientist” terms, the INCREASE in Antarctic Sea Ice is a 1 in 1000 year event! This is the earliest in the year that Antarctic Sea Ice Area has exceeded 8 million square kilometers total.

        The National Snow and Ice Data Center is predicting that by August, ARCTIC sea ice will be at 100% of normal as well (it is currently about 530,000 square kilometers below normal). If that DOES actually happen in August, the whole “polar melting” sham will have been completely exposed 🙂

  43. Hypocrisy at its finest……Hilary Clinton on TV a little while ago admonishing the Nigerian Government for not doing enough to stop the kidnappings of the under age girls……this is the same Hilary Clinton that says it does not matter that our people died in Benghazi and is the same Hilary Clinton that ignores the SAME issue with Mexico…..Sigh.

  44. Holy shit…..there is wet stuff falling from the sky…..could it be…….rain? Or a global warming phenomena..

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Parts of Western South Dakota and Western Nebraska were getting SNOW earlier today….

      • Yeah….but those people get snow all the time…..this is actual RAIN…RAIN….RAIN……..wet stuff for lakes and water sheds…….woo hooo……I must raise my hands and eyes to the west and thank the Native American Rain God…..TO’ Neinilii…….must offer sacrifice……hmmmmm…..was thinking Washington DC politicians but we already are in a drought…….perhaps transplanted Californians?

        • 1 year ago, here where I am, it was a blistering 85F

          Today, it is 38F.

          Last year, it was blamed on Global Warming.
          This year, it is blamed on Global Climate Disruption.

          Take heart, the insanity of Climate Change is waning.

          Be concerned, they are switching their insanity to “water resources”.

          We need to prepare for the onslaught of econuts attacking water and seizing water resources into becoming the same idiocy they did with climate.

          • Oh yes……..it has already started in Oklahoma and Texas…..however, we are putting up one hell of a fight…..but they are trying to dictate who can and cannot build stock tanks….drill water wells with windmills….controlling the water on private land……it is here and more coming.

            • I might mention that no one is letting the feds on their land…..even with out of state warrants….and bench warrants for search ( the new technique being tried )…..

  45. My theme song, in case anyone was wondering.

    “Before I die alone, let me have vengeance”

  46. Hey Sed-Here’s your satan worshipers -nothing but atheists being lying jerks.

    “According to an interview conducted with Mesner at Vice.com, the Satanic Temple isn’t the place to go if you really want to seriously worship Lucifer (or any other supernatural being). Mesner sees its mission more as poking religion in the eye and challenging its place in the public square by insisting that Old Scratch also gets a seat at the table (hence the group’s support of a fairly ludicrous-looking statue of Satan and some adoring youngsters at the Oklahoma State Capital, to keep company with a plaque containing the Biblical Ten Commandments).

    As Mesner tells Vice writer Shane Bugbee, “While the original thinking was that the Satanic Temple needed to hold to some belief in a supernatural entity known as ‘Satan,’ none of us truly believed that. I helped develop us into something we all do truly believe in and wholeheartedly embrace: an atheistic philosophical framework that views ‘Satan’ as a metaphorical construct by which we contextualize our works.

    “We’ve moved well beyond being a simple political ploy and into being a very sincere movement that seeks to separate religion from superstition and to contribute positively to the cultural dialogue.”

    Apparently, for the Temple, “contributing positively to the cultural dialogue” consists of taking the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and using it in some sort of quasi-historical/theatrical evening of entertainment.”


    • V.H.

      Oh, and I guess those that call themselves “Christians” and then act entirely opposite are “ok”, just because they call themselves “Christians”?

      Two steps forward, and now, one step back, V.H.

      • No, I don’t believe I’ve ever just across the board supported all people who call themselves Christians no matter their actions. I do tend not to claim I know whether they are Christians or not-but when one stands up and admits they are lying-I see no reason not to denounce them for it. If their cause is a just one-lying shouldn’t be necessary and it should always be looked down on. They are playing games just for the fun of it.

      • But I wonder BF-just how are Christians supposed to act-and as you’ve told me many times- who the hell are you to decide what makes one a Christian.

        • By following the proclamations of the Man from Nazarene.

          “Do unto others as ye wish done unto you”

          Golden rule, the tenant of the real anarchist, and the tenant of true human freedom.

        • By the way, by that definition, I am a Christian.

        • And I agree with Gandhi:

          “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

          • If I’m judged based on Christ-I expect to lose.

            • I do not agree.

              The choices remain individual.

              If you act upon others in a manner which if reversed would be disagreeable to you, then you are not a Christian.

              So the question that rises is:
              “Why do you believe your action upon others is “right”, if that action upon yourself you would declare is “wrong”?

              • Christ=God

                In answer to your question-I don’t think such and never declared that I did.

                But from my reading of the Bible, man is judged by his works but he is saved by Grace.

                • Christ=’ ‘anointed’ ‘

                  Christian= a person who adheres to….the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

                  Man is judged by his work, and is saved by his work.

                  The most terrible monster can be saved if he, in the end, saves humanity.

                  The most pious man is condemned if, in the end, to protect his piety, abandons mankind.

  47. We disagree-I’m not surprised 🙂 – but you were asking me my opinion based on my faith-but just how is a man saved by the world.

  48. The sentencing of a prominent Saudi blogger to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for insulting Islam shows the Kingdom is run by radical Islamists who leave no room for dissent, his wife told FoxNews.com.

    Raif Badawi, co-founder of the “Saudi Arabian Liberals” website and a well-known thinker and blogger, has been accused of writing anti-Islamic discourse online. His wife, who fled the nation two years ago and now lives near Montreal, said Badawi is “paying the price” for believing in freedom of expression.

    • To the dogmatists, no matter the subject, cannot allow dissent as it would undermine their irrationality.

      Hence, the response is always violence.

      This is not a condition of Islamists but a condition of all dogmatists. They exist everywhere.

      This condition is the future of the West. The subject may be different, but the consequences will be the same.

      • I suppose you could apply dogmatist to a regime…..it does not have to be an individual. Yes, they do exist everywhere and it breeds.

  49. Isn’t it interesting how the Democrats are now crying foul because they are the minority in the house….and on committees and such. Wanting fair minority rights and such……..just like the Republicans cried foul when they were not in charge.

    My take on the Benghazi hearings…..if there is nothing to worry about and this is going to be redundant, why don’t the Dems just back off and let the Repubs make a fool of themselves. However, Pelosi, this morning, was saying that they want to right to disallow certain witnesses. This I do not understand ( I really do, of course)…..if they want the truth, then ALL witnesses need to be interviewed publicly.

    I guess the “protect Hilary at all costs” crowd is alive and well.

    • Hilary needs no protections…….who is going to run against her from the conservative side? There are no conservatives…..just established RINOS.

    • Sorry, the Republicans never cried loud enough. Maybe it is only a perception of mine, but I can’t for the life of me ever remember the Republicans whining the way democrats do nor controlling the language of the debate either (or even trying) . I have heard every recent news report, even the ones from Fox and One News go on and on about the 7 – 5 split of the investigative committee that the dems bitch about without ever putting it in context nor pointing out that such committees, when organized by democrats are far more lopsided,.

      As much as I absolutely loath Tom DeLay for being a big government faux conservative (and a major ass) there is nothing in my careful watching of politics over the past 50 years that even comes close on the R side to the pure insanity of Nancy Pelosi and the pure unmitigated lying evil that is Harry Reid. If anybody ever wanted to remake “Tale of Two Cities”, they could do no better than to cast these two as Madame Lefarge and the Prosecutor.

      Correct me if I am wrong but when Nixon was busy having his breakdown, it was his own people who told him it was time to leave. I cannot ever imagine that solid democratic wall doing the same thing. I am at the point when there is a democratic spokesman on TV defending Benghazi, the IRS, Obamacare’s lies, NSA or Fast and Furious, I turn to some lighter fare like “South Park” . To maintain my objectivity, I come back maybe every fifth or seventh time but continue to hear the exact same lame BS and stonewalling. We are in our fifth year after Fast and Furious and no closer to who did what to whom than when we started.

  50. Going to add to the above. The media will, at the behest of theD’s continue to hammer the R’s over the unfairness of the 7-5 split on the committee. Perhaps it will actually get to a point where Bohner will “compromise” and forfeit the game. What I would like to see though Colonel, is those Southern Boys, known for their wiles, actually saying something, over and over, as many times as it takes to get recognized, something like this….

    “The purpose of this committee is to investigate whether the obfuscations, distortions and outright lies told by the Administration over Benghazi were political in nature. To allow the political party which would have benefited most from those distortions to be able to control or divert this committee is akin to allowing the fox to guard the hen house”. Kinda earthy, down home Andy Griffith stuff which would go over well with the folks. Think Trey Gowdy has it in him?

%d bloggers like this: