Page 33 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2328293031323334353637384383133 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 2855
  1. #641  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    The right thinks me, the left thinks we.
    It's not that simple but so what. Why should I care about the person who refuses to get a job, get an education, try to get ahead in life, when they get sick or injured? If they aren't related to me or someone I am personally invested in why should one penny of my hard earned income pay for anything for them? Because? whatever. Because they are less fortunate than me? Not my fault. I am successful because I chose to be and worked hard to get there.

    Don't get me wrong. I give to charity, I volunteer in my community. I give of my income and my time.

    So it's a bit of both me and we.
  2. #642  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You'll note I said the deaths were lack of medical coverage, with lack of insurance being the causal factor. But I'll choose to assume that you didn't read closely and just missed that, rather than assuming that you were being disingenuous.
    actually this is what you said
    The actual study was from the Institute of Medicine....since the writing of the article, the numbers have been estimated to be increasing, from 18,000 in 2002 to 22,000 in 2006. The total dead due to lack of insurance is 137,000 from 2000 to 2006.
    Don't see the word causal in there at all. Maybe I just dont read well, but I really dont think its there. Would you mind highlighting it for me?



    The Institute of Medicine is a lefty organization now....and you think the left is fear mongering? Conservatives are starting to see commies under every rock.
    Any one who is saying the lack of healthcare is the reason people die is doing nothing more than trying to get people to be afraid of having no insurance. Since that is what Obama and the left are doing, it kind of makes them the same in this case.

    Do you bother having health insurance? If so, why?
    Employer provides it free of charge. I have it because it's given. I have been without a good portion of my life and never gave it much thought. Still dont worry about it.

    Because you know that access to quality health care is no guarantee of survival from cancer or other serious illnesses, but it sure does make survival more likely. And with the added bonus of not losing your house to try to pay for your care
    Making a bunch of assumptions arent you? How do you know I am a home owner? And no I dont worry about access to health care. If I needed it when I didnt have health insurance, I paid for it.
    I suppose I should point out I dont smoke, I eat healthly, I exercise and live a healthly life. While I realize people like me can still get sick, it's not something I worry about. And quite frankly I dont need you to worry about it for me.
  3. #643  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    actually this is what you said
    Don't see the word causal in there at all. Maybe I just dont read well, but I really dont think its there. Would you mind highlighting it for me?
    Look three posts below the one you referenced. It was a response to a comment from you, so it's no surprise you didn't read it.



    Any one who is saying the lack of healthcare is the reason people die is doing nothing more than trying to get people to be afraid of having no insurance. Since that is what Obama and the left are doing, it kind of makes them the same in this case.
    That's ideology at its best: "I believe what I want to believe, and anyone who disagrees is a lefty". Awesome!

    Employer provides it free of charge. I have it because it's given. I have been without a good portion of my life and never gave it much thought. Still dont worry about it.
    It's not free of charge to your employer. They pay pretty good prices....why don't you turn it down that "job-killing" insurance you're taking? And, of course, then I can guarantee you'll worry about what would happen if you get sick.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #644  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    The right thinks me, the left thinks we.
    How can you say that in good conscience?
    I think Woof's response directly below yours proves palandri's point far better than I can. "Why should I care?....If they aren't related to me or someone I am personally invested in why should one penny of my hard earned income pay for anything for them?"

    Of course we all know that everybody who can't afford health insurance "refuses to get a job, get an education, try to get ahead in life".

    As palandri said: "Me, not we"..... Maybe that should be the new Republican catch-phrase. Personally, it just makes me a bit ill, and very sad for the future.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/27/2009 at 06:05 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  5. #645  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    How can you say that in good conscience?
    There a time and a place for "rugged individualism" and "self reliance". Always looking out for #1. Sink or swim buddy! Each man on their own two feet. I don't need any help from anybody, not today, nor tomorrow. There's almost a chauvinistic machoism to the concept.

    When I am working with an apprentice electrician, sooner or later I need to cut the strings and say you are on own your buddy, sink or swim.
    Last edited by palandri; 07/27/2009 at 07:51 AM.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  6. #646  
    WOW....just heard Obama's comment to the woman who asked about the care for her elderly mother. Not sure if you libs in here, who are so concerned about everyone, caught the comment but he actually said that perhaps this woman's mother really didn't need surgery, and maybe better to just take a pain pill. Ok....so this is the "compassion" you guys speak of? I know Bujin will say it was taken out of context, or stupid me just didn't understand the brilliant Obama. Talk about rationing health coverage...."I'm sorry...we will turn down that procedure as we think a pain pill is the best option....she is old and really has no more usefull life left in her. So sorry.....next?" If this had been an insurance company exec, oh geez....we'd be hearing about that. It's okay for the government to approve no treatment, as you know, Big Brother knows best, right? But Obama....Obama is wonderful....he is all knowing....he....well let's face it....Obama hasn't a clue what he is saying unless there's a prompter telling him what to say. I wonder if the man uses a prompter when talking to his wife. Amazing....I simply can't believe you guys think this is more compassionate care.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #647  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There a time and a place for "rugged individualism" and "self reliance". Always looking out for #1. Sink or swim buddy! Each man on their own two feet. I don't need any help from anybody, not today, nor tomorrow. There's almost a chauvinistic machoism to the concept.

    When I am working with an apprentice electrician, sooner or later I need to cut the strings and say you are on own your buddy, sink or swim.
    I'm reeeally getting tired of this myth. Conservatives are MORE compassionate towards others than liberals. I don't know where you picked it up, but you really need to stop repeating that, palandri. It is UNTRUE.

    -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. JC Strat's Avatar
    Posts
    33 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #648  
    People should be free to purchase whatever level of health insurance they deem wise. Taxes can pay for an acceptable minimum of care for those who choose to buy expensive cell phone plans and go out to dinner 3x a week instead of purchasing health insurance. Why sacrifice when Uncle Obama is going to take care of us.

    Liberals are all about equality. They want equal service to all, regardless of willingness or ability to pay. Libertarians like myself see freedom as a greater principle than equality. People should do what they wish as long as it doesn't significantly impinge on the rights of others. Liberals can keep your pandering and your attempts to control behavious that you don't approve of to youself. Taxing everyone to pay for a monopolistic entitlement system that ensures equally bad care for all is a one-two punch against personal freedom. Eventually we are all just tax slaves working to incentivize lazy and bad behaviour - just like the bailout of all of these financial companies that made bad decisions.
  9. #649  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm reeeally getting tired of this myth. Conservatives are MORE compassionate towards others than liberals. I don't know where you picked it up, but you really need to stop repeating that, palandri. It is UNTRUE.

    -- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
    An even better example of liberals charitable giving is our very own VP, Joe Biden. Even though his income was a good bit higher than my income in 2007 (never saw his '08 tax return), I gave 14 times what Biden gave (he gave $995) for that year. Even worse, what I gave to charity in '07 exceeded what he and his wife gave for the prior 10 years! Now it is true, he smiled more when he paid taxes, so apparently that made him more patriotic.....but I did pay my taxes (therefore, I'm still somewhat patriotic). But this explains what was said in an earlier post of liberal means "we" while conservative means "me". Liberals believe "we" (government) is best at determining who needs help while Conservatives believe each individual ("me") is best at determining the best way to help people in need.

    I think what gets Conservatives in trouble is our attitude about not really wanting to help those that often don't appear interested in helping themselves. Yes, there are those that are in horrible situations through no fault of their own (no problem helping those folks)....but what about those people who are where they are because they didn't make the effort? How about the young person that turns down health coverage even though they can afford it (yes, I see this, it is a fact) and then get in an accident. Do I feel sorry for this person, you bet, but should I be held responsible for his decision? Or what about the person who weights 350 lbs, has diabetes, heart problems, can't work because of his situation....should I be held responsible for this person? Did someone hold this person down and force food down his/her throat? I watched a man the other day (appeared to be in his 30s) fight to get out of a car because he weighed so much, he got stuck! No lie. But you know what, I wouldn't deny this person the right to eat 5 burgers for lunch....just don't make ME (oops, that word again, "me") pay for the results of his love of food. So, that makes me appear to be without compassion. Whatever.
  10. #650  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    An even better example of liberals charitable giving is our very own VP, Joe Biden. Even though his income was a good bit higher than my income in 2007 (never saw his '08 tax return), I gave 14 times what Biden gave (he gave $995) for that year. Even worse, what I gave to charity in '07 exceeded what he and his wife gave for the prior 10 years! Now it is true, he smiled more when he paid taxes, so apparently that made him more patriotic.....but I did pay my taxes (therefore, I'm still somewhat patriotic). But this explains what was said in an earlier post of liberal means "we" while conservative means "me". Liberals believe "we" (government) is best at determining who needs help while Conservatives believe each individual ("me") is best at determining the best way to help people in need.

    I think what gets Conservatives in trouble is our attitude about not really wanting to help those that often don't appear interested in helping themselves. Yes, there are those that are in horrible situations through no fault of their own (no problem helping those folks)....but what about those people who are where they are because they didn't make the effort? How about the young person that turns down health coverage even though they can afford it (yes, I see this, it is a fact) and then get in an accident. Do I feel sorry for this person, you bet, but should I be held responsible for his decision? Or what about the person who weights 350 lbs, has diabetes, heart problems, can't work because of his situation....should I be held responsible for this person? Did someone hold this person down and force food down his/her throat? I watched a man the other day (appeared to be in his 30s) fight to get out of a car because he weighed so much, he got stuck! No lie. But you know what, I wouldn't deny this person the right to eat 5 burgers for lunch....just don't make ME (oops, that word again, "me") pay for the results of his love of food. So, that makes me appear to be without compassion. Whatever.
    Not to mention helping him could have resulted in an injury to you. Then you would have been forced to use our substandard healthcare system. Which would have driven up the costs of said system, resulting in the need for Obamacare. OMG it is our fault!!
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #651  
    Quote Originally Posted by frankrizzo View Post
    I don't understand why this breaks down to right vs. left. Any resaonable person should be able to see that we are not meeting the needs of our citizens and that we need to change the system.
    No argument at all from the right on this point. We agree that "we" need to reduce costs in healthcare, and covering those that can't cover themselves seems like a good idea (notice I said "can't", not "doesn't want it"). It's how we go about it, thats at issue. The government's takeover of one sixth of the US economy without the means to pay for it, coupled with the relinquishing of control of our treatment decisions to beaurocrats in Washington, is what we're arguing about. Not the fact that healthcare needs some fixing - we all agree on that.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #652  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    By the way, lack of insurance is considered the 4th highest cause of death in this country yearly--based on people with diseases that are considered treatable IF they could have gone to a doctor to get treated early in the process.
    Provide just ONE death certificate that says COD is lack of health insurance and I'll believe you.

    Since all of Europe has settled on universal healthcare systems (after, by the way, many had systems like ours and realized they were too expensive, ineffective, wasteful, and unsustainable), I don't understand why we have to re-invent the wheel.

    All the European countries have slightly different systems--and we could take the best from each. If you don't like the 3-4 week waits for non-emergency care in England, look at France's, Germany's, and Italy's systems. ALL of them have better health outcomes at a MUCH cheaper cost than we do--and EVERYONE is covered.

    If you just want to base access to healthcare on those who can pay for it (because of the twisted idea that those who make more money somehow deserve it more), perhaps we should do that for grade school education too. Yes, only if you can afford school should you be able to go. Everyone else should remain uneducated.

    It's the same thing.
    If Europe is so great why don't you live there?

    It's funny that you mention our public education system. In case you weren't aware, it sucks. Not a good comparison, but nice try. Next you should get excited about colleges that only accept students who can afford them. May we should make them all public and "fair" too?
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #653  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    By the way, lack of insurance is considered the 4th highest cause of death in this country yearly--based on people with diseases that are considered treatable IF they could have gone to a doctor to get treated early in the process.

    Since all of Europe has settled on universal healthcare systems (after, by the way, many had systems like ours and realized they were too expensive, ineffective, wasteful, and unsustainable), I don't understand why we have to re-invent the wheel.

    All the European countries have slightly different systems--and we could take the best from each. If you don't like the 3-4 week waits for non-emergency care in England, look at France's, Germany's, and Italy's systems. ALL of them have better health outcomes at a MUCH cheaper cost than we do--and EVERYONE is covered.

    If you just want to base access to healthcare on those who can pay for it (because of the twisted idea that those who make more money somehow deserve it more), perhaps we should do that for grade school education too. Yes, only if you can afford school should you be able to go. Everyone else should remain uneducated.

    It's the same thing.
    You need to go back to cutting and pasting talking points, cause you're getting hard to follow. Who said we want "to base access to healthcare on those who can pay for it" or that "those who make more money somehow deserve it more"?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #654  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    People, even young people, buy health insurance when they can afford health insurance. Turning down health insurance is because of price, not because of any feeling of invincibility.

    There isn't an epidemic of young people refusing car insurance--that's because it's affordable.

    Control private insurance's wasteful administrative costs and profits to bring down the prices--then everyone will buy health insurance.
    Zelgo....sorry.....you're wrong. Young people do turn down health insurance unless it's FREE....or.....unless they already have health issues. Oh there are many who do see the importance of it (my 2 step-sons, as an example), but I also see many who just don't feel the need for it. Not sure what you do for a living, but with my job I see it. Also, remember that sometimes, even if it is a price reason, they often place a priority on other things. Maybe they shouldn't get the smart phone with unlimited plan, and just get a regular phone....a limited plan....and spend some money on health insurance? Maybe their car really didn't need those fancy rims? But....they figure they are invincible so why worry about it? But it does happen.

    As for profits....I posted UnitedHealthCare's numbers the other day in another post, and their end of 1st quarter profit margin was around 3.75 - 4%. I don't think anyone could say that is high. In fact, Aetna just came out with lousy numbers today. I'm guessing you won't be feeling sorry for them, huh? LOL
  15. #655  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You do know that the NRA is a nonprofit agency--considered a "charity" and giving money to it is considered "charitable giving."

    Giving to right-wing, evangelical "I hate abortion; I hate gays; I don't give a hoot about the poor and ignore Jesus' main message" churches is considered "charitable giving."

    How you look at those numbers you spout depends on how you define "charity."
    Wow....you sure make a bunch of assumptions there. I'd list some of the charities I give to, but, you'd probably accuse Meals on Wheels of only giving food to the wealthy or just Republicans. I do wonder exactly who Biden gave that $260 to in 2003....probably some art museum or abortion clinic?
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #656  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You do know that the NRA is a nonprofit agency--considered a "charity" and giving money to it is considered "charitable giving."

    Giving to right-wing, evangelical "I hate abortion; I hate gays; I don't give a hoot about the poor and ignore Jesus' main message" churches is considered "charitable giving."

    How you look at those numbers you spout depends on how you define "charity."
    your accusations are baseless, and senseless.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #657  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Well, that's the healthcare system we have right now, and conservatives have not offered ANY alternative proposals--so one has to assume conservatives like the ways things are right now.
    This is an outright lie.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. JC Strat's Avatar
    Posts
    33 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #658  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The government is NOT taking over anything in this healthcare reform--specifically NOT treatment decisions. RIght now, treatment decisions are made between your doctor and the insurance executives.
    The government constantly denies claims for services that they do not cover. They put amazing bureaucratic red tape in the way of care. They make laughable, moronic decisions that affect my practice daily.

    Example: I am now no longer allowed to list dyspnea as a reason for an x-ray exam. I have to document," shortness of breath." Despite the fact that they are synonymous. The government will not pay for an exam done for "dyspnea." Bravo! Some bureaucrat is too uneducated to even look up a definition on google.

    The government currently rations care that it provides through Medicare/Medicaid. Why else is there an entire industry of private "supplemental" Medicare programs out there? Foreign governments control healthcare costs by rationing care. The number of obese people with diabetes and atherosclerosis leading to renal failure and premature death differentiates our ourcomes from other countries where these diseases are less prevalent to date.

    Liberals are not doing anyone any favors by insisting that the government should be in charge of healthcare. Concentrating all of this power over our lives in the hands of the government is not a great idea. All politicians are corrupted by power and money, which they already control far too much of. When Obamacare hits, you will have massive payment reductions to caregivers and hospitals along with more stringent rationing of care under the guise of "best practices" and "pay for performance" which will end up alienating caregivers and patients. Reform is necessary but it should be the product of careful deliberation and not a rushed process where nobody even bothers to read the bill they are signing on to.

    If you think that government can reduce costs more aggressively than a private sector incentivized to reduce costs, then I have a $900 hammer to sell you.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #659  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Um, from what I recall, it's you who are the king of cutting and pasting, particularly from Conservative websites.
    I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that at least when you cut and paste, usually the data is at least coherent, even if incorrect or out of context.
    All of the points are so easily refuted (as is done here quite effectively--and backed up by real research--not talking head blathering) that it makes me wonder if you actually have read and analyzed anything you cut and paste.
    You must be talking to someone else. You've not successfully refuted anything I've posted.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #660  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There a time and a place for "rugged individualism" and "self reliance". Always looking out for #1. Sink or swim buddy! Each man on their own two feet. I don't need any help from anybody, not today, nor tomorrow. There's almost a chauvinistic machoism to the concept.

    When I am working with an apprentice electrician, sooner or later I need to cut the strings and say you are on own your buddy, sink or swim.
    Fine but you didn't answer the question.

Posting Permissions