Page 91 of 143 FirstFirst ... 41818687888990919293949596101141 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,820 of 2855
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1801  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And in your mind addiction is "bad behavior" and represents a weakness in moral fiber that anyone should be able to control? You clearly don't see it as a disease then, is that right?
    Are you addressing me? I guess that what quoting "bad behavior" is meant to indicate.

    Well, I don't define what Addiction is medically. I do know that it exists and it has real effects on people, but of course, I didn't refer to addiction at all. Are you attempting to start a conversation about Addiction?

    I was referring to the question of personal responsibility (not inherently tied to smoking, and hence not inherently tied to addiction), and whether or not a free society can respect personal choice without personal responsibility.

    The question of addiction being a disease isn't relevant, it is whether an individual is responsible for themselves or if others are responsible for them. If others are responsible for a person, then that inherently carries authority over them. I'd hope that people understand that truism.

    KAM
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1802  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I think we're on the same page here.....right?
    Well, I'm not sure I understand your views completely, but we may be.

    Very simply. Responsibility and Authority go hand in hand. If someone is responsible for another person--paying for their medical care for example, then that inherently carries authority over them (to the extent the degree of responsibility dictates).

    KAM
  3. #1803  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Are you addressing me? I guess that what quoting "bad behavior" is meant to indicate.

    Well, I don't define what Addiction is medically. I do know that it exists and it has real effects on people, but of course, I didn't refer to addiction at all. Are you attempting to start a conversation about Addiction?

    I was referring to the question of personal responsibility (not inherently tied to smoking, and hence not inherently tied to addiction), and whether or not a free society can respect personal choice without personal responsibility.

    The question of addiction being a disease isn't relevant, it is whether an individual is responsible for themselves or if others are responsible for them. If others are responsible for a person, then that inherently carries authority over them. I'd hope that people understand that truism.

    KAM
    You equated "smoking three packs a day" with irreponsibility. Regardless of my own feelings about it, do you consider smoking (or excessive alcohol use or excessive eating) to be an addiction and a medical problem, or do you consider it to be an irresponsible act on the part of irresponsible people who have a total choice in the matter? And if you think it's some combination of both, then do you think we have a responsibility to treat some part of that as a disease, just as if they had diabetes? And I'll be glad to accept the generic definition of "we". Should your insurance company, that you pay your premiums to, provide total coverage for lung disease for patients who smoke three packs a day (which will increase your premiums, right?)?
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1804  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You equated "smoking three packs a day" with irreponsibility. Regardless of my own feelings about it, do you consider smoking (or excessive alcohol use or excessive eating) to be an addiction and a medical problem, or do you consider it to be an irresponsible act on the part of irresponsible people who have a total choice in the matter? And if you think it's some combination of both, then do you think we have a responsibility to treat some part of that as a disease, just as if they had diabetes? And I'll be glad to accept the generic definition of "we". Should your insurance company, that you pay your premiums to, provide total coverage for lung disease for patients who smoke three packs a day (which will increase your premiums, right?)?
    Talk about slippery slopes.... the answer is yes. You could make such an argument for just about any activity that could end in injury. Now, there may be room for discussing reduction in premiums for those that lead more "healthy" lifestyles.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1805  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You equated "smoking three packs a day" with irreponsibility. Regardless of my own feelings about it, do you consider smoking (or excessive alcohol use or excessive eating) to be an addiction and a medical problem, or do you consider it to be an irresponsible act on the part of irresponsible people who have a total choice in the matter? And if you think it's some combination of both, then do you think we have a responsibility to treat some part of that as a disease, just as if they had diabetes? And I'll be glad to accept the generic definition of "we". Should your insurance company, that you pay your premiums to, provide total coverage for lung disease for patients who smoke three packs a day (which will increase your premiums, right?)?
    Yes, I think smoking three packs a day is irresponsible. I also think that one can become addicted to smoking. I'd say--not being an expert that continuing to smoke is both a matter of addiction and irresponsible action, because it is possible to quit, but not a simple matter of just stopping. As I said--I believe that addiction and its effects are real. I'm told that addiction is a medical condition, and since that is not my field, I'll not question that.

    However, I don't have a responsibility to pay for anyone's medical treatment of any kind whether their medical need is the result of a choice, addiction, or random chance. I should note that I probably am responsible for paying for dependent's medical needs--I'm assuming we aren't talking about a dependent of mine.

    Does money I earn go to pay for other people's treatment--it surely does. Government can choose to take my money and spend it however they wish--and they do exactly that. It still doesn't make me responsible for someone else's health care. I can't be even if I wanted to be.

    As far as insurance companies...well, that's up to them I suppose, not me. They do pay for this, but they charge higher prices for those people, or so I'm told. As to whether that should cost me more money...well, I don't like that, but that is inherent in an insurance system (which as you've been told, I prefer to minimize), so I guess by default if I choose to participate in that insurance system, I have to accept that.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 11:13 AM. Reason: corrected mistake
  6. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1806  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Isn't this a non-issue if people are left to be responsible for their own actions, and the consequences of them? Its really harsh to say "well, *****, you smoked 3 packs and day and that helped to destroy your health--its your responsibility to pay for it." But isn't that what responsibility is about? But what's the alternative? Do we just pay for other people being irresponsible, or do we curtail their freedom to choose to be irresponsible?

    Neither is compatible with a free society. No one should be forced to pay for other people's bad behavior, and government shouldn't be in the business of determining an individual's personal choices.

    KAM
    Do you even acknowledge that you already pay for the care of the uninsured? That is a very fundamental yes or no question that is being skirted by every naysayer. Do you advocate scrapping the entire current system in order for your plan of every man, woman, child, senior, and indigent for themselves to replace it?
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1807  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    One needn't be a politician, or person with a stake in politics, to politicize an issue.
    Should I respond to your insistence on this accusation by saying the same about you? Oh you're just politicizing it--on the opposite side. Wasteful.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    One needn't "ask" anything when your positions are plainly expressed for all to read. No mystery there. Just as you make an assessment of others' views, yours are no exception, which is fair enough.
    That would apply to a given statement, but unless you've read all my posts on the subject, it is highly doubtful you can say you know my views. Maybe you did. You aren't responding to a specific post--you are making broad declarations about your supposed understanding of my views.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    When there can be simple agreement on the fundamentals, there can be a real discussion. Getting into "details" is not only premature, where some positions taken are that there is nothing urgently wrong with our healthcare economics, but only invites the very politicization and fear-mongering shown in this thread. Just read the thread title, for a perfect example.
    Well, I didn't create the thread title. If you believe my position is that there isn't anything wrong with healthcare economics you'd be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Actually, no you don't. What you have is fear, without data, based on anecdotal beliefs. When you want to talk about the current costs of treating the uninsured/under-insured and its skyrocketing costs to every member of our society, including businesses small and large, then a constructive discussion can be had. You already pay for the uninsured/under-insured to receive treatment. Only in the real world, they are seen too late when their health has already significantly declined, forcing higher cost tests and treatments to be employed. That is the only apples-to-apples comparison that focuses on the actual problem at hand.
    So, you really don't have anything to say other than to accuse me of "fear mongering?" Can you do something other than making baseless accusations?

    Anecdotal? The financial state of Medicare and Social Security are anecdotal? Exactly what "data" are you talking about. Where is your Data, evidence, etc? Its possible I've missed it, but so far, I've not seen much from you other than general agreement with the general Obama administration "plan."

    You sure are quick to throw around accusations, but you aren't really living up to your own standards. I'll keep watching to see if you've got anything to add, or just plan to keep throwing around accusations.

    What you are apparently saying here is that you define how a discussion must take place--with your rules, and accepting your assumptions. That's not how things work.

    Again--it doesn't seem you are aware of my views on any of these issues nor are interested in finding out what they are, so...good day to you.

    KAM
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1808  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You are totally right--that was a rude thing to do.

    However, when you say "censored" do you mean "censured"?

    I wonder how many people outraged at this, giggled when an Iraqi Reporter threw a shoe at President Bush. Please note--I'm not saying you approved of that.

    KAM
    I wonder how many approved when Bush was booed by Democrats during a similar joint session. One which was also compared in the media by a session of the British parliament.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1809  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Do you even acknowledge that you already pay for the care of the uninsured? That is a very fundamental yes or no question that is being skirted by every naysayer. Do you advocate scrapping the entire current system in order for your plan of every man, woman, child, senior, and indigent for themselves to replace it?
    Certainly. I have taxes taken directly to pay for Medicare, as well as money from my general taxes taken for other programs (like Medicaid). As someone who pays for medical care, I also pay the elevated costs passed on. Or at least that is my understanding. No one has actually ever billed me with a line item that said "payment for the uninsured" but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

    That's being skirted by "naysayers?" First--again, I'll ask you to stop labeling me or others inaccurately. "Naysayer" implies that you have a position of being correct, which is not the case. You may think its correct, but that's not objective. Neither is my opinion objective--its an opinion.
    If you knew my position, you wouldn't need to ask this question, because I've talked repeatedly about Medicaid (which we pay for from taxes) being spent on those who don't have healthcare. If you were aware of this, you'd already know that I'm aware I (and everyone else) already pays for those without insurance.

    As to your last question...I thought you said you claimed to understand my position? So, did I advocate scrapping the entire system? Didn't you just say there was no need to ask questions of my position?

    I guess you didn't really know that much about my views after all. That's ok however--just stop claiming that you do, when you don't.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason: Elaboration
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1810  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I wonder how many approved when Bush was booed by Democrats during a similar joint session. One which was also compared in the media by a session of the British parliament.
    Hello Groovy,

    Oddly enough I was going to mention British Parliament--which can be very raucous.

    KAM
  11. #1811  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I have to disagree. I believe President Obama was VERY specific.
    He was no more specific than the John Mackey ideas which I linked which were dismissed as vague guidelines.
    Including immediately enacting lawsuit limits in limited areas to determine their effectiveness.
    What limits and in which areas?
    It will be a great day when this effort is complete. A turning point for our Country. I invite you to take an active part in it's outcome as opposed to obstructing it.

    Obstructing things that one is opposed to is an active part. In that vein, I will continue to question proposals which I find double-plus ungood.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #1812  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    That's being skirted by "naysayers?" First--again, I'll ask you to stop labeling me or others inaccurately. "Naysayer" implies that you have a position of being correct, which is not the case. You may think its correct, but that's not objective. Neither is my opinion objective--its an opinion.
    If you knew my position, you wouldn't need to ask this question, because I've talked repeatedly about Medicaid (which we pay for from taxes) being spent on those who don't have healthcare. If you were aware of this, you'd already know that I'm aware I (and everyone else) already pays for those without insurance.
    KAM
    Actually, naysayer means no such thing.

    Noun 1. naysayer - someone with an aggressively negative attitude
    obstructer, obstructionist, obstructor, resister, thwarter - someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take


    Seems appropriate to me.
  13. #1813  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    [...] This card would enable them to get whatever medical care they need at any hospital and any doctor or other medical care facility. How is it paid for? It isn't. Simply, the hospitals, doctors, nurses, technicians donate the costs to that person. When I say donate, I don't mean pass that cost onto someone else--that's what happens right now. They simply don't charge for it.
    [...]
    The only difference between this and what others are suggesting is in who pays.
    This is a truly outside-the-box and innovative idea... which is why you'll be dismissed as a kook for it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1814  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Where the problem lies is that your fear is unfounded as no nonpartisan interest has provided evidence to support the notion that "middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers". It just doesn't exist and is clearly not constructive to the overall interest of economic security and stability of our healthcare system. Our status quo is unsustainable and will break our backs.
    The CBO itself said 3 million people who currently have employer-based insurance would have no offer under the proposal. And that by 2016, 9 million people who would have otherwise been covered by employer-based plans would no longer be enrolled in such a plan. Now, whether the options offered under the exchanges would be better or worse is still debated but considering it will cost trillions of dollars I don't think it would be a stretch to see health care rationing expanded in order to a) pay for it, and b) expand it to the "masses" of uninsured.
  15. #1815  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    This is a truly outside-the-box and innovative idea... which is why you'll be dismissed as a kook for it.
    I would suggest absurd as a more appropriate description. And for those other than doctors who need to make a living and support their families, and their employees? Everyone that works in a hospital? Techicians, gardeners, people making minimum wage? They should all donate their time? The percentage of the health care dollar that goes to providers is around 20%. Over a third goes to hospitals to cover their costs. Another 10% is for drugs and about a third goes for ancillary services. Whether you think that doctors should see patients for free gets to the heart of a national health plan, now, doesn't it? Why not just salary them, right? That way you can easily control what they earn and don't earn. And then you will get a British system. If that's really what you want, go for it. We already don't get what we pay for in this country in terms of health care expenditures. Solving the problem by maintaining payment to for-profit insurance companies and cutting reimbursement to the most highly trained professionals will result in another example of "getting what you paid for". Go for it.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1816  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I agree with you on the exception cases. They are are very rare, but my wife's grandmother was one of them. I think she was 90 when I first met her. She lived on a diet of canned sardines in olive oil and loved hot peppers and cranberries. What a diet. Then to top it off, she would have 1 to 2 shots of bourbon every evening. She died when she 98. I remember her funeral card said born 1898, and I thought wow, she was born in the 1800's.
    Hmm, I foresee a diet change in my future. Actually, the hardest change would be the bourbon. I'm a scotch man myself.
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1817  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, naysayer means no such thing.

    Noun 1. naysayer - someone with an aggressively negative attitude
    obstructer, obstructionist, obstructor, resister, thwarter - someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take


    Seems appropriate to me.
    Hmmm. Yeah, you've got me on the definition. The definition itself doesn't require the user be correct--it was just stated from that position. So, point conceded on the definition.

    However, the use (here) was to accuse others of being in the wrong, and using the word as a pejorative and I disagree with that. In reality, those being called naysayers just have different views that others want to attempt to ignore, demean or otherwise avoid dealing with.

    I should have restricted my response to the use of the term, and not (inadvertently) wandered into implying an incorrect definition.

    Let me do what people usually proclaim for themselves. "You WIN!"

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 01:16 PM. Reason: Addition.
  18. #1818  
    I am a bit amused by some who think Obama gave all these details last night.....even he said towards the end of the speech that "....significant details still need to be worked out."
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1819  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I am a bit amused by some who think Obama gave all these details last night.....even he said towards the end of the speech that "....significant details still need to be worked out."
    And you know who they say is in the details
  20. #1820  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I am a bit amused by some who think Obama gave all these details last night.....even he said towards the end of the speech that "....significant details still need to be worked out."
    When the bills come out, and there is coverage for illegals, or evidence that the deficit will increase, or a lack of efforts to evaluate tort reform, then I will be glad to be disappointed that he didn't keep his word. Until then, those are the things I expect to see in the bill....all in response to republican complaints. Are those specific enough? But will it make a difference in any support from republicans? Any bets?

Posting Permissions