Jimmy Kimmel's monologue

[Bob78164]

Here's Jimmy Kimmel's monologue (with subtitles) from last night's show.



His experience and emotion speak for themselves. His words at the end, which are political in nature, speak for many of us. --Bob

[BackInTex]

and......?

[Bob78164]

and......?

And it should be required watching for any member of Congress before voting on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to cripple its protections for those for pre-existing conditions. Particularly since I can pretty much guarantee you that a lot of their voters have seen it. --Bob

[BackInTex]

and......?

And it should be required watching for any member of Congress before voting on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to cripple its protections for those for pre-existing conditions. Particularly since I can pretty much guarantee you that a lot of their voters have seen it. --Bob

It's garbage. Politics and policy based on emotion is foolish.

Tell me Bob, what it your limit on how much you will personally spend to save my child, if it is guaranteed everyone else with means contributes the same amount? $1,000? $1,000,000? You don't have that, I'll bet, but what if it costs that much?

The number is somewhere between $0.00 and $1,000,000,000,000 and if you cant give me that number you are closing your eyes to reality. There's a number. Tell me what it is. Then we can start the conversation.

Don't forget about Flock's grandkid, or Spock's child. They need the same treatment.

[BackInTex]

Oh, and by the way, Kimmel's kid was treated by a charity, not the government. No forced funding was used. Other than the tax deductions given contributors, no tax dollars were needed.

[Pastor Fireball]

and......?

Yet another perfect demonstration of the difference between a conservative and a liberal... and, this time, BiT did it in only one word. The conservative says, "This tragedy doesn't affect me personally, so I don't care." The liberal says, "This tragedy shouldn't happen to anybody, period."

But since BiT understands only one-word sentences, I'll simplify it. Conservative = "Me." Liberal = "Anybody."

[BackInTex]

and......?

Yet another perfect demonstration of the difference between a conservative and a liberal... and, this time, BiT did it in only one word. The conservative says, "This tragedy doesn't affect me personally, so I don't care." The liberal says, "This tragedy shouldn't happen to anybody, period."

But since BiT understands only one-word sentences, I'll simplify it. Conservative = "Me." Liberal = "Anybody."

His tearful monologue about the lion was better, and it was stupid.

Bob did not make this post to draw sympathy for Kimmel's kid. He posted it as support for government single payer healthcare.

Kimmel and his kid have my sympathy. They may even have some of my money I've donated to charities and that's fine with me. But to use that to hawk Obamacare is shameful, if not dishonest.

[Bob78164]

and......?

And it should be required watching for any member of Congress before voting on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to cripple its protections for those for pre-existing conditions. Particularly since I can pretty much guarantee you that a lot of their voters have seen it. --Bob

It's garbage. Politics and policy based on emotion is foolish.

Tell me Bob, what it your limit on how much you will personally spend to save my child, if it is guaranteed everyone else with means contributes the same amount? $1,000? $1,000,000? You don't have that, I'll bet, but what if it costs that much?

The number is somewhere between $0.00 and $1,000,000,000,000 and if you cant give me that number you are closing your eyes to reality. There's a number. Tell me what it is. Then we can start the conversation.

Don't forget about Flock's grandkid, or Spock's child. They need the same treatment.

Less than I was spending before the Affordable Care Act to pay for the bankruptcies of those who couldn't afford their medical bills. Did you know that personal bankruptcies are down by very nearly 50% since 2010? (And by "very nearly 50%" I mean more than 49%).

Maybe you can do what flock couldn't. How does private insurance add value to the system?

And if you think that either Cedars or Children's Hospital of LA treated Jimmy Kimmel's child as a charity case, you're way off base. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Tell me Bob, what it your limit on how much you will personally spend to save my child, if it is guaranteed everyone else with means contributes the same amount? $1,000? $1,000,000? You don't have that, I'll bet, but what if it costs that much?

Let's see, last year I paid several hundred dollars for life insurance. I also paid for auto insurance and homeowners insurance. Since I'm still alive and my house didn't burn down and we didn't have any accidents, I guess I spent all that money to help out other people who weren't quite so fortunate last year. That's how insurance works. My insurance dollars go to potentially save thousands of other children, while their insurance dollars go to potentially save mine. A lot of us buy insurance so that the relatively few of us who have major claims get the treatment they need.

[BackInTex]

Let's see, last year I paid several hundred dollars for life insurance. I also paid for auto insurance and homeowners insurance. Since I'm still alive and my house didn't burn down and we didn't have any accidents, I guess I spent all that money to help out other people who weren't quite so fortunate last year. That's how insurance works.

Try getting homeowners insurance after your house catches fire (pre-existing condition).

Or getting your auto insurance to pay $60,000 to repair your $15,000 car (no caps). Or a better example, getting car insurance after having your 16th at fault accident in the same year.

Or moving from one life insurance policy to another, at the same rate, once you've contracted pancreatic cancer, or even termed out your 20-year fixed policy and want to renew for the next 10-years.

None of the above will happen.

THAT's how insurance works.

Obamacare is NOT insurance.

[Bob78164]

Let's see, last year I paid several hundred dollars for life insurance. I also paid for auto insurance and homeowners insurance. Since I'm still alive and my house didn't burn down and we didn't have any accidents, I guess I spent all that money to help out other people who weren't quite so fortunate last year. That's how insurance works.

Try getting homeowners insurance after your house catches fire (pre-existing condition).

Or getting your auto insurance to pay $60,000 to repair your $15,000 car (no caps). Or a better example, getting car insurance after having your 16th at fault accident in the same year.

Or moving from one life insurance policy to another, at the same rate, once you've contracted pancreatic cancer, or even termed out your 20-year fixed policy and want to renew for the next 10-years.

None of the above will happen.

THAT's how insurance works.

Obamacare is NOT insurance.

So you agree with Congressman Mo Brooks when he says that "people who live good lives" don't have pre-existing conditions? Interesting. I wonder how that applies to Jimmy Kimmel's kid. Or to anyone suffering from a latent congenital birth defect that suddenly rears its head.

You seem to be claiming that the country can't afford the Affordable Care Act. The evidence is against you. A public option would almost certainly solve the problem for those who are finding private insurance in the marketplaces unaffordable. And the rest of your argument is handled by making sure that people can't opt out of the insurance pool until they need it. That's called the individual mandate and it's already part of the law.

Problem solved. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Or a better example, getting car insurance after having your 16th at fault accident in the same year.

Actually, you can. In Georgia, as in most states there's an assigned risk pool for auto insurance. No matter how bad your record is, as long as you still have a license you can get insurance at a rate that's not exorbitant. Of course, that's not actuarially sound, and the policies are assigned to the various insurance companies who do business in the state, and they have to eat the losses on those few policies.

The bigger question is, regardless of the mechanism used to pay for it, whether providing an adequate level of medical care for the entire citizenry is for the common good. We have already determined that police and fire services, roads, courts, a military, and many other services are important enough for us to use various funding mechanisms to pay for them. And I might add that the wealthy take full advantage of all those services to a much greater extent than the poor and middle class do. Virtually every other advanced nation has made that same determination in regard to health care.

[BackInTex]

In Georgia, as in most states there's an assigned risk pool for auto insurance. No matter how bad your record is, as long as you still have a license you can get insurance at a rate that's not exorbitant. Of course, that's not actuarially sound, and the policies are assigned to the various insurance companies who do business in the state, and they have to eat the losses on those few policies.

Again, that is not insurance. It's welfare. I'm not saying there is no place for it, but it should be called what it is. But I also shake my head asking "Where is the accountability?" Are you such a noob that you don't care that people are legally stealing money from you? That's what it is if someone refused to take responsibility for their actions to either not drive, or learn to drive, or just drive safe. It's not that hard. You do it. I do it. Our kids do it. If you can't drive safely stay off the roads. Driving is not a right.

Oh, and you are really a noob if you think the insurance companies are eating the losses. They aren't. The responsible folks buying insurance eat the losses.

[BackInTex]

So you agree with Congressman Mo Brooks when he says that "people who live good lives" don't have pre-existing conditions? Interesting.

Where did I say or imply that? When you answer that, we'll talk.

Use your lawyer skills to convince the jury here I said or implied that from my comment. You may even bring in evidence from outside this thread.

[BackInTex]

The bigger question is, regardless of the mechanism used to pay for it, whether providing an adequate level of medical care for the entire citizenry is for the common good. We have already determined that police and fire services, roads, courts, a military, and many other services are important enough for us to use various funding mechanisms to pay for them. And I might add that the wealthy take full advantage of all those services to a much greater extent than the poor and middle class do. Virtually every other advanced nation has made that same determination in regard to health care.

That's an excellent question. First, we have to agree on "adequate level".

Using your analogy of police and fire protection. Right now there are people getting robbed, car jacked, and murdered even though we have police. So there must not be an adequate level. If we assign a personal patrolman (or patrol woman) to each and every one of us, including the criminals, we will eliminate a lot of the crime. I will go as far to say we'd eliminate a majority of it. But we can't do that.

Nor can we provide an unlimited amount of medical care. We need to determine that level. Obamacare has no level We will provide any and all medical care until there is no money left to provide any medical care, or first responsers. And that is foolish.

[Bob78164]

So you agree with Congressman Mo Brooks when he says that "people who live good lives" don't have pre-existing conditions? Interesting.

Where did I say or imply that? When you answer that, we'll talk.

Use your lawyer skills to convince the jury here I said or implied that from my comment. You may even bring in evidence from outside this thread.

You implied it by comparing medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. --Bob

[BackInTex]

So you agree with Congressman Mo Brooks when he says that "people who live good lives" don't have pre-existing conditions? Interesting.

Where did I say or imply that? When you answer that, we'll talk.

Use your lawyer skills to convince the jury here I said or implied that from my comment. You may even bring in evidence from outside this thread.

You implied it by comparing medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. --Bob

Nope. I compared "no cap" to at-fault accidents. I compared an already burning house to pre-existing conditions. I rest my case.

[Bob78164]

Where did I say or imply that? When you answer that, we'll talk.

Use your lawyer skills to convince the jury here I said or implied that from my comment. You may even bring in evidence from outside this thread.

You implied it by comparing medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. --Bob

Nope. I compared "no cap" to at-fault accidents. I compared an already burning house to pre-existing conditions. I rest my case.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine. --Bob

[BackInTex]

You implied it by comparing medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. --Bob

Nope. I compared "no cap" to at-fault accidents. I compared an already burning house to pre-existing conditions. I rest my case.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine. --Bob

You didn't answer the question. You showed your inability to form a proper conclusion based on the evidence, or the inability to admit your conclusion was drawn from an improper and haphazard review of the evidence, and was therefore wrong.

[Bob78164]

Nope. I compared "no cap" to at-fault accidents. I compared an already burning house to pre-existing conditions. I rest my case.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine. --Bob

You didn't answer the question. You showed your inability to form a proper conclusion based on the evidence, or the inability to admit your conclusion was drawn from an improper and haphazard review of the evidence, and was therefore wrong.

I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.

I guess you can't explain either how private insurance companies add value to the system. I'm not surprised, because they don't. --Bob

[BackInTex]

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine. --Bob

You didn't answer the question. You showed your inability to form a proper conclusion based on the evidence, or the inability to admit your conclusion was drawn from an improper and haphazard review of the evidence, and was therefore wrong.

I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.

I guess you can't explain either how private insurance companies add value to the system. I'm not surprised, because they don't. --Bob

I don't like your response because it is flawed and does not answer the question asked. It was a comment, a technically correct comment, but not an answer to the question.

You said I implied agreement with the comment that people who live good lives don't have pre-existing conditions. Your defense of that comment was that I compared medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. I did. But the question, in response to your attempt to insult me, was related to pre-existing conditions. My comparisons of medical insurance to other forms of insurance was specific:
- pre-existing conditions compared to already burning house
- no cap compared to excessive at fault accidents

I did not compare medical insurance covering pre-existing conditions to at fault accidents.

Your response (which I now refuse to classify as an answer) did not connect the dots to form an answer to the question. You improperly mixed my analogies.

And I can explain how private insurance companies add value to the system. But given your inability to properly comprehend simple analogies as well as economic principles, the effort would futile.

But I might at a later time if I see some promise in you being able to understand it.

[Bob78164]

You didn't answer the question. You showed your inability to form a proper conclusion based on the evidence, or the inability to admit your conclusion was drawn from an improper and haphazard review of the evidence, and was therefore wrong.

I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.

I guess you can't explain either how private insurance companies add value to the system. I'm not surprised, because they don't. --Bob

I don't like your response because it is flawed and does not answer the question asked. It was a comment, a technically correct comment, but not an answer to the question.

You said I implied agreement with the comment that people who live good lives don't have pre-existing conditions. Your defense of that comment was that I compared medical insurance to people with at-fault accidents. I did. But the question, in response to your attempt to insult me, was related to pre-existing conditions. My comparisons of medical insurance to other forms of insurance was specific:
- pre-existing conditions compared to already burning house
- no cap compared to excessive at fault accidents

I did not compare medical insurance covering pre-existing conditions to at fault accidents.

Your response (which I now refuse to classify as an answer) did not connect the dots to form an answer to the question. You improperly mixed my analogies.

And I can explain how private insurance companies add value to the system. But given your inability to properly comprehend simple analogies as well as economic principles, the effort would futile.

But I might at a later time if I see some promise in you being able to understand it.

It strikes me that every time I ask this question of conservatives, I get an almost-comical list of reasons why they could answer it if they wanted to, but they don't want to. The one thing I have yet to see is a substantive answer. Kind of reminds me of Donny. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The one thing I have yet to see is a substantive answer.

I didn't use those exact words, but that is what I said above.

[Bob Juch]

I guess you can't explain either how private insurance companies add value to the system. I'm not surprised, because they don't. --Bob

Well, it gives me a very good income. I'm still in favor of single-payer.

[Bob Juch]

http://www.consumerreports.org/personal ... ankruptcy/