Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $22,963
27%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 27% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by JBird77777

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • CBS Held Damaging Obama Benghazi Tape

    11/05/2012 6:27:38 AM PST · 20 of 28
    JBird77777 to barmag25

    It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, or, in this case, what the meaning of the phrase “act of terror” is.

    Obama is trying to have it both ways.

    When attributing the attack to a video, Obama defines “act of terror” generically as anything that is violent, in this case performed by an angry mob of the general Libyan population.

    When arguing that he correctly labeled the attack on the day after in the Rose Garden, Obama defines “act of terror” as a “terrorist act” performed by radical terrorists.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 6:45:46 PM PST · 34 of 35
    JBird77777 to Brilliant

    OK, you know a lot more about the specifics of the medical industry than I do. If the AMA is deliberately reducing the number of doctors, for its own purposes, then it appears to be abusing the authority granted to it by the government. In that case, another qualified entity should be given this power, since it is likely that there are more than enough people capable of becoming excellent doctors to fulfill market demand.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 5:15:59 PM PST · 32 of 35
    JBird77777 to Brilliant

    “The government has given authority to the medical profession to determine accreditation of medical schools. And the government requires you to be licensed in order to be a doctor, which in turn requires you to have a medical degree from an accredited medical school.” This is all probably good, since consumers generally are probably not in good positions to determine whether or not a given doctor is competent in the critical area of health care.

    I do think that there are more than enough people capable of opening the needed number of medical schools, and that there are more than enough people capable of becoming excellent doctors.

    I don’t see how government authority over accreditation and licensing means that the government needs to interfere with market mechanisms in providing sufficient doctors. The market is very capable of establishing suitable pricing of medical schools, training, health care services, and doctor compensation. Government interference with these matters results in market inefficiency.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 5:03:44 PM PST · 31 of 35
    JBird77777 to perfect_rovian_storm
    I agree that this will result in fewer people having health insurance, and that’s a good thing. It means that only those consumers who perceive the benefits of health insurance to be worth the full, unsubsidized costs will buy it. Those currently buying health insurance only because of the tax deduction subsidy will drop it, as they should. It is inefficient for anyone to buy anything having a perceived value that is less than the full market cost of it.

    The reality is that, rightly or wrongly, we do currently have an income tax. Perhaps it should be abolished. I favor very substantial shrinkage of government activity and the corresponding tax burden. But unless and until the income tax is abolished, tax deductibility of health care related costs does subsidize health care insurance purchases, and correspondingly shifts the burden to other taxpayers. This is economically inefficient, and unfair to the other taxpayers.

    Incidentally, most discussion about the effect of raising taxes has to do with tax rates, not tax deductibility. To the extent that any current purchasers of health care insurance would choose to continue buying health insurance despite the loss of deductibility, most of these purchasers would pay more tax, under the current tax code. The increased taxes that these purchasers would pay could and should be used, on a dollar for dollar basis, to reduce tax rates for all taxpayers.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 4:33:28 PM PST · 27 of 35
    JBird77777 to perfect_rovian_storm
    A tax deduction is a subsidy. It reduces the taxes that the taxpayer otherwise would pay and transfers that burden to other taxpayers.

    The deductibility of health care costs should be eliminated. As indicated in the original post, “The elimination of tax deductibility of health care premiums and related costs would, by itself, very substantially increase tax revenues. Accordingly, broad offsetting income tax rate reductions could and should be enacted simultaneously.”

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 4:26:36 PM PST · 26 of 35
    JBird77777 to Brilliant

    There has been discussion of the government role on the supply side of health care costs.

    As is the case on the demand side, the government should play substantially no role on the supply side.

    If left alone, the market will establish doctor compensation that is adequate to attract the necessary number and quality of doctors. To the extent that doctors need financing for their education and training, the market can and will supply this.

    Similarly, the government should not get involved in determining the number, size, and equipment needs of hospitals. The private sector is fully capable of doing that, in a market economy.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 4:22:55 PM PST · 25 of 35
    JBird77777 to Brilliant

    There has been discussion of the government role on the supply side of health care costs.

    As is the case on the demand side, the government should play substantially no role on the supply side.

    If left alone, the market will establish doctor compensation that is adequate to attract the necessary number and quality of doctors. To the extent that doctors need financing for their education and training, the market can and will supply this.

    Similarly, the government should not get involved in determining the number, size, and equipment needs of hospitals. The private sector is fully capable of doing that, in a market economy.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 4:12:41 PM PST · 24 of 35
    JBird77777 to JohnBovenmyer

    With regard to Medicare and Medicaid, it should first be determined whether and to what extent taxpayers should subsidize health care costs of the poor and elderly. This is a separate matter that is beyond the scope of determining economic efficiency.

    Once that is determined, then it seems that any subsidy should be in the form of cash escrow accounts, to be administered as set forth in the original post. In the interests of economic efficiency in delivering health care, the government should have no role in the pricing or purchasing of any health care services, including these. The market is the best path to economic efficiency.

  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 2:38:24 PM PST · 21 of 35
    JBird77777 to Cobra64
    People should not be incented by the government to buy health insurance or to do anything else. Government “incentives” through the tax code are in effect subsidies at the expense of other taxpayers, and they distort the market place. If it makes economic sense for people to buy insurance at market rates, they should do so. If it doesn't, then they should not.
  • ALLOW THE MARKET TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS

    02/28/2010 11:38:31 AM PST · 1 of 35
    JBird77777
  • Erroneous presentation of the fiscal impact of Obamacare

    02/28/2010 6:15:55 AM PST · 5 of 5
    JBird77777 to combat_boots
    A stated primary goal of the bill is to reduce the federal cost of health care.
    Accordingly, Obama promises that he will not sign any bill unless it does not add to the federal debt, as scored by the CBO.

    One of Obama’s selling points with the American public and Congress is that both the Senate and the House bills pass this test. This occurs because, among other things, both bills have 10 years of tax hikes/Medicare cuts and fewer years of benefits and associated costs. If changes to the bill were to result in the bill no longer passing this standard set up by Obama, the bill would become virtually impossible to sell.

    However, this standard of combining these largely unrelated aspects of this combined bill is conceptually erroneous, and should be rejected. Instead, the health care aspect of the bill should be evaluated separately from the largely independent tax hikes/Medicare cuts.

    The CBO has scored the health care aspect of this bill as increasing the federal debt by $900 billion, and it is this aspect of the bill that should be the standard for determining fiscal impact. By this corrected standard, this bill fails the fiscal test.

    The fact that this $900 billion debt increase is paired with $1 trillion of the largely independent tax hikes/Medicare cuts does not change this failure.

    No case appears to have been set forth as to why the proposed $1 trillion of tax hikes/Medicare cuts should be used to “pay for” this $900 billion federal health care cost. There seems to be no valid basis for this pairing. If this $1 trillion aspect of the bill were to be enacted, it should instead be used to reduce the federal debt.

    The focus should be on this $900 billion debt increase, that cannot be justified, not the combined $100 billion debt reduction that results from the incorrect combination of the two largely unrelated aspects of this bill.

  • Erroneous presentation of the fiscal impact of Obamacare

    02/27/2010 3:03:00 PM PST · 1 of 5
    JBird77777
  • ERRONEOUS PRESENTATION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF OBAMACARE

    02/27/2010 2:22:15 PM PST · 1 of 2
    JBird77777
  • Brown win could spark legal battle

    01/17/2010 6:52:08 PM PST · 33 of 89
    JBird77777 to jazusamo

    Could someone do a timeline on this. As I recall, after the Dems agree with each other on their compromise bill, the CBO has to score it, which can take 10 days. While there may be a Dem compromise regarding taxation of Cadillac plans, I don’t think any compromise has been reached regarding abortion funding.

    If Brown wins, then as I understand it, he has to be certified within 10 days.

    So if the Dems don’t reach agreement on a compromise by Tuesday, and send it to the CBO, then it appears that Brown will be certified and sworn in before the compromise bill can be voted on.

  • Senate Hopefuls Spar In Debate

  • Pastor James Manning accuses Columbia University of treason. Obama never went to the school.

    01/11/2010 6:14:17 PM PST · 29 of 170
    JBird77777 to jq2

    http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

    This article among other things says “Obama’s professors and classmates, including former international politics professor Michael Baron and current MTV president Michael Wolf, confirm that he was a brilliant, standout student and that he was an active participant in seminars. Baron said he was one of the top one or two students in his class.”

  • Pastor James Manning accuses Columbia University of treason. Obama never went to the school.

    01/11/2010 6:06:48 PM PST · 18 of 170
    JBird77777 to Kleon

    This seems to be a detailed description of Obama’s years at Columbia, written by Phil Boerner who says he was Obama’s roommate there.

    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

  • Duke Lacrosse 60 Minutes Broadcast (Live Thread)

    10/16/2006 3:50:34 AM PDT · 743 of 1,332
    JBird77777 to darbymcgill

    Reducing this case to its bare essentials, it appears that the only items of evidence supporting the AV's rape claim are the following.

    1. The AV and the defendants were present at the house that evening for at least a few minutes simultaneously.
    2. The medical exam of the AV indicated that the AV recently had sex.

    Leaving aside all of the exculpatory evidence, does applicable law allow for trial and possible conviction based on nothing more than the AV's accusation and the above evidence?

    If so, it seems the law should be changed.

    If not, then the defendants should be able to get the case dismissed.

  • Duke Lax News - Mgean Kendall (no Link)

    06/06/2006 6:45:01 AM PDT · 157 of 189
    JBird77777 to Mike Nifong

    >the DA has received "GOOD NEWS".

    "Good news" seems as an odd choice of words by Nifong.

    In a case of alleged rape, it seems that "good news" would be that no rape occured, such that there was no victim and no wrongdoers.

    Nifong presumably is suggesting that he has news that strengthens his case. Any strengthening of his case would seem to be "good news" only if it is a given that a rape occured. Here, that is far from a given.

  • Duke rape case set for 2007

    05/19/2006 10:24:41 AM PDT · 132 of 1,161
    JBird77777 to BlueStateDepression

    It appears that the best the defendants can hope for through the standard court system is acquittal next spring, after spending very substantial legal fees and keeping their lives in turmoil until then.

    I am not a lawyer, but perhaps there are some better alternatives available to them.

    It would seem that any such alternatives would involve first preparing a thorough statement of their complete legal defense.

    This statement could first be presented to the DA, with a respectful request that he review it and then either dismiss the case or advise as to why he will continue.

    If this approach is unwise or if the DA's response were to be unsatisfactory, then the statement could be presented to the judge or the NC Attorney General, if either has authority to act.

    If none of this is viable, perhaps such a statement should be publicized generally, with the goal of causing the public informally to cause the DA to dismiss the case, upon his realizing how foolish continuing with the case would appear.

    If all of these actions would be considered unwise, then another lawyer could prepare and distribute such a statement, based upon the information that has already been made public.

    I realize that in most instances it is probably unwise to show one's case to the DA in advance of trial, but in this instance most of this information has already been publicized, and Reed Seligman at least seems to have an airtight alibi that wouldn't be prejudiced by this action.

  • Defense gets accuser's phone data

    05/19/2006 5:46:38 AM PDT · 39 of 196
    JBird77777 to Alia

    Yesterday on the air, Greta more than once said that she was "down here" in Durham.

    Apparently she considers New York City to be recognized as the standard geographic reference point.

  • SELIGMAN: ADDITIONAL MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISCOVERY

    05/18/2006 4:44:26 PM PDT · 744 of 981
    JBird77777 to Rheo

    Several posters have pointed out that the legal fees related to this matter will likely be very high.

    Assuming that this matter goes to trial next spring and that all three of the boys are acquitted at that time, how much are the legal fees likely to be for each of them?

    Assuming that the judge refuses to reduce the $400,000 bond for each of them, the loss of use of these funds obviously would be a further cost to each of them.

  • Grand jury may consider new charges in Duke case

    05/16/2006 5:30:08 AM PDT · 1,501 of 2,161
    JBird77777 to Howlin

    /Of course, you do realize, don't you, that because Nifong refused to even LOOK at those pictures that Cheshire tried to show him that this entire indictment can be thrown out, right?

    Since Nifong refused to meet with Cheshire or Evans, wouldn't it have made sense for Cheshire to have hand delivered the exculpatory evidence to Nifong's office. If Nifong then decided not to look at this evidence, it seems that Nifong would have looked even worse.

  • Grand jury may consider new charges in Duke case

    05/16/2006 4:53:51 AM PDT · 1,481 of 2,161
    JBird77777 to sinkspur

    /Mangum will break from the pressure and confess that she's lying.

    If the AV breaks from the pressure, she is likely to say that she has told the truth, but has decided not to proceed because of the stress.

  • Grand jury may consider new charges in Duke case

    05/15/2006 9:21:44 PM PDT · 1,217 of 2,161
    JBird77777 to marajade

    From what I understand of the AV's appearance and condition, I doubt that any of the boys would have had any desire to have any contact at all with her.

    But on the remote chance that not only one but three were so inclined, it's even more doubtful that they would have chosen this behavior, even if they were drunk, because of the risk of being reported by her, and also because they would have been concerned that their teammates would find out, ridicule them for their poor taste, and condemn them for such a heinous act, and that at least one teammate would testify truthfully.

  • CNN reporting Hostage Situation North of Atlanta. (Update: Nichols CAPTURED!)

    03/13/2005 8:57:43 PM PST · 712 of 713
    JBird77777 to CyberAnt

    This is the amazing story of the lady who turned in Nichols.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/noads/0305/14hostage.html

  • Rather Defends CBS's Use of Memos (WP not buying it).

    09/10/2004 9:03:44 PM PDT · 88 of 125
    JBird77777 to DameAutour

    "Rather: PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR US ... THE STORY AND WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTERATTACK ON THE STORY."

    This would make sense if Rather used the phrase "attack on the story". But the term "counterattack" implies that the story was an attack. Responsible news organizations do not attack, they report. Rather has unwittingly acknowledged CBS' bias.

  • 2+2 = Gore pledges $6M to Kerry, Democrat groups &Kerry loan twice as nice

    04/29/2004 6:05:22 AM PDT · 7 of 9
    JBird77777 to steve8714
    The Boston Herald article states that the home is owned by The T & J Louisburg Square Nominee Trust. If this was also the case at the time of the loan, then it seems that the only party that could have mortgaged the home was the trust, and John Kerry could not have mortgaged the home in whole or in part. It would be interesting to know what party is identified on the public record as the mortgagor.