Page 67 of 71 FirstFirst ... 175762636465666768697071 LastLast
Results 1,321 to 1,340 of 1405
  1. #1321  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    1. No, that alone does not make you stupid (that requires paying attention to your other posts. ) Why do you think that anyone, anywhere, in any plan, would mandate that you get a flu shot? You get to make up your own mind about what you want to do or not to do. Patients deny themselves care every day that will cause them harm. As long as they are informed about the consequences, and they are an adult making that decision about themselves and not someone else, that's the way things should be. But I am fascinated about you knowledge about your own immune system and how exactly it is that you know what's best for you in terms of flu shots.
    2. That's a really accurate representation of the health care debate...NOT. If the majority of the country voted for change in the health care system, and it was going to cost me personally a marginally higher tax rate but provide care for millions of suffering people, I would be glad to pay that marginally higher tax rate. How you seem to think that this is half my money is beyond comprehension, misleading, and absurd. Unless, of course, you also want to stop supporting the military, the highway system, all public education, the post office, and all those public option payments for fire and police service. I think I'm smart enough to realize that those things are worth investing in, just like health care for all.
    I love how you cant just answer the question.

    1. Who would know my immune system better than me? I am the one who has lived with it for decades. If I NEVER get the flu and NEVER get a flu shot, why would I start now?
    2. Look up hypothetical in the dictionary. My question was a general one. Perhaps not specific enough though. It wasn't health care specific. It was to show that rational people don't just hand over ANY PART of their income because some talking head says it's best for everyone.

    Question is would you have the same lockstep reaction if it were something other than health care.

    Oh and thanks for calling me stupid. I'd return the favor but ***** (asterisks) just doesnt have the same punch.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #1322  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I do have a question for all the smart folks in here (like davidra, daThomas, zelgo, etc) because this just doesn't make sense to me. So....without getting sarcastic....please explain how a bill can be be properly analyzed when you factor in income for 10 years (taxes starting in 2010), but only count 6 years (starting in 2014)of expenses? Isn't that going to be slightly skewed? Is it a little deceiving? Why not compare 10 years of income to offset 10 years of expenses? And please don't say we will save the taxes collected in the first 4 years of the plan to have on hand for those 6 years of expenses. Please don't say that.

    Isn't that like me making a budget for 2010, but factoring in my income for the last 4 or 5 months of 2009 so that my 12 months of expenses in 2010 are offset by 2010 income and those last 4 months of 2009 and saying "see, my budget is looking right on target". What would be wrong with that budget? Would that be a budget that would be recommended for a household or business? If not, why is it then a prudent way to run the Federal budget?
    So, no one can explain this? There must be a piece of this puzzle that is missing, I just can't figure it out. Or is the funding of health care just totally irrelevant? daThomas? davidra? zelgo?
    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
  3. #1323  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yes, you know what's best for you...until H1N1 starts striking your neighborhood and the schools where you kids go--and then you start looking like crazy for the vaccine and complain that the government failed because there isn't enough anymore.

    Perhaps if you choose not to get one, you should also be barred from getting one until everyone else is line has gotten one. The same for all the other recommended tests, vaccines, and pills that you "choose" not to take.
    Wow what America do you live in? Maybe I should just be taken out and shot for speaking out against the government.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1324  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Yes, you know what's best for you...until H1N1 starts striking your neighborhood and the schools where you kids go--and then you start looking like crazy for the vaccine and complain that the government failed because there isn't enough anymore.

    Perhaps if you choose not to get one, you should also be barred from getting one until everyone else is line has gotten one. The same for all the other recommended tests, vaccines, and pills that you "choose" not to take.
    H1N1 has, in all likelihood, already struck Woof's neighborhood, and my neighborhood and your neighborhood. And yet, we're all still here. In fact, that particular outbreak has already peaked and is in decline. Sooner than predicted but not soon enough to keep politicians from trying to gain political capital from it.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1325  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The big problem with the last administration was that it was government run by people claiming that government was the enemy.

    Would you trust any company run by people who claimed that company didn't work?
    I don't recall that being a major component of the last administration.

    However, the current administration is one that seems to view government as the solution for everything. More and bigger government is the answer for all problems--THEY will decide what's best for individuals and provide for individuals. Well, that's not their job, and it never will be (rightfully). We put these people into place to perform the specified function of GOVERNMENT itself, not to govern more and more aspects of our lives.

    As to your analogy--if a company was wasteful, inefficient and inept, and otherwise not doing a good job, yes I definitely would want someone in there saying that was the case and looking to change it. If only that was the goal of the Bush administration.

    Big Government (even a benevolent one) and liberty are directly opposed. If you don't understand this, I can't really change your mind. Note however, I am not an anarchist--rather, I am a person that believes that the only government that I find acceptable is one that is truly accountable to the citizens. We are getting farther and farther from that, and many people here are demonstrating (daily) why.

    If you don't realize that we (legally and traditionally) are a limited government, not one that is free to do whatever they can slap some weak justification on, then there is no common ground for us.

    KAM
  6. #1326  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Then why ever go to the doctor? Who knows your heart better than you? You've eaten crap all these years and never had a heart attack so why bother changing your lifestyle? You've had unprotected sex all these years and didn't get HIV, why bother changing now?

    The problem is you don't know your immune system, you don't know your heart, you don't know your brain--you think you're just fine when the doctor suddenly tells you you have high blood pressure or cancer.

    You have every right not to take the flu shot--but your past experience has very little bearing on your future.
    I didnt say I dont get regular physicals. Don't be a tool. I know a hell of a lot more about my body and immune system than dr I've seen once a year for three years (only lived here three years).

    Thanks for thinking youre really smart. Such a let down, but not a surprise that youre not.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1327  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The hypocrisy of the Right is suddenly they are concerned with finances and cost when not a challenge was brought up when the $1 trillion Medicare Part D was passed by Republicans, when the federal government quadrupled in size with the creation of Homeland Security, and when the debt doubled with tax cuts and two wars.

    Where was your voice of concern then?
    Wrong on many counts. There is nothing "sudden" about this amongst Conservatives. First, I (and many conservatives) opposed the Medicare Part D business, for the same reasons we oppose this mess--we can't afford it. That's a consistent position.

    As far as the Department of Homeland Security--that was a reorganization of many existing organizations. The mere creation of it need not be an additional expense. Of course spending more money following 9/11 is exactly what happened. You can argue against or all of that, but I suggest doing so specifically. For my part--I favor reducing the size of the Federal Government, do you?

    Tax cuts--one of the few government actions that tend to pay for themselves. Government revenues tend to increase (and seldom decrease) with lower tax rates. If you look at objective effects of the Bush tax cuts, you might learn something. Was it a gangbusters win? Not quite--they weren't big enough to produce stronger results, but the effects were generally positive. Further--tax revenues following the so-called Bush tax cuts remain as a percentage of GDP remain very close to historical averages.

    SPENDING is what increased, not reduced revenues. What's that Conservative view again...oh right, REDUCING spending (note the difference between Conservatives and Republicans who have in many cases subsequently been thrown out of office--mostly for those who claim to be fiscally conservative).
    Unsustainable spending is the continuing problem here--with or without this healthcare "Reform" and it is likely (thanks to entirely dishonest efforts of politicians) to increase costs, despite lies to the contrary.

    Wars--yes, that is very expensive, but eventually they will end. When does spending on social security, medicare, medicaid, and this new bill end? Or do they just keep spending every year (exceeding what we spend on defense I might add), and piling up unfunded liabilities?

    So, you are quick to talk about hypocrisy, but what about you? Are you for cutting spending and fiscal responsibility or not? Or are you just like those republicans you dislike so much--where you want to spend money on things you prefer and complain when others do the same?

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1328  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Really? Republicans pride themselves on the "government is evil" mantra.

    Of course, credibility gets lost when government quadruples and the debt doubles while you're in office...
    Ah, now you are altering your claim. You said that the Bush administration was claiming that. Who? I said I don't recall that being a major theme of the Bush administration, so now you are changing it to be Republicans--not the last administration (there is a difference).

    Government is evil? Can you give some examples of politicians (from the Bush administration) using the term "evil" to describe our government. I wouldn't be surprised to hear if there were a few, but please provide your examples.

    Your statement implied it was run by people who think this--so, who? Let's hear the quotes of the Bush administration claiming government is "evil."

    I'm not sure--do you think that repeating your doubling debt and quadrupling government is some sort of argument against me or people that share my views? We weren't for big government then either.

    You on the other hand appear to have BIG problems with it then, but are happily accepting it now. Who has a hypocritical stance? It isn't me.

    KAM
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1329  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    "slap some weak justification on"--so 46 million people being uninsured, 60% of bankrupsies due to medical reasons, premiums going up and up without end, quality of healthcare poor compared to what we pay for, etc, etc, etc, are all "weak" justifications?

    Sheesh--what do you need to call something a "strong" justification with regards to healthcare?
    First, I wasn't speaking only of the current "reform" bill, and your 46 million is a sham number.

    As far as Weak justifications--yes, idiotic non-solutions being proposed that will only shift the problem around and do nothing to address the rising costs is being weakly justified.

    If your side has strong justifications, they wouldn't be lying about nearly every aspect of this bill, and twisting the arms of their caucus and/or bribing them.

    The truth of course is that Government already robs the public of billions upon billions of dollars (wasting billions--by their own admission) to help pay for the poor and elderly. Something around 600 Billion a year (for medicare and Medicaid), and they do such a poor job that they can't cover this relatively small number of people.

    You and your allies expect that this same government (regardless of which party is in charge) will somehow (without increasing costs) cover millions more people. Laughable--truly outrageously laughable. It will not happen.

    Additionally--if you understand that the US government is a limited government (violated regularly by both parties), no amount of justification (weak or strong, true or false) trumps their oath of office and adherence to the Constitution. I know, I know--that archaic little document is so bothersome and irrelevant to statists. Regardless it is vitally important, despite efforts by criminals (those who violate the law are by definition criminals) to trample it whenever it suits them.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1330  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Can you give me some quotes from anyone in the Obama administration who says big government is good?
    Actually, Barack Obama himself has stated in a variety of cases that Government is the best solution to these problems, but better than that--he demonstrates it with his actions. The stimulus Plan--government had to take "bold swift action" to save the economy. Your memory must be quite short.

    KAM
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1331  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    "slap some weak justification on"--so 46 million people being uninsured...
    False.

    60% of bankrupsies due to medical reasons...
    False.

    False justifications don't help your case.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1332  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You may have opposed Medicare Part D, but did you vehemently call them a "bunch of buffoons" who are ruining America, as you call the current group in Congress? You brush off the war expenses by saying they will eventually end, but did you call Bush and his Congress the same?
    I'm not brushing off anything. I'm merely stating facts. If that bothers you, I'm sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It seems when the spending is done by an administration you support, you don't seem so vehement in your opposition...
    How you can arrive at that conclusion is beyond me, because it isn't my position. It doesn't help me if a Republican drives us into economic disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I like fiscal responsibility--but not when it is a euphemism for stopping social programs that are aimed at the poor and lower classes as if they are the sole cause of their status.
    In other words, you want what you want and justify it by claiming to be compassionate.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If you want the most fiscally conservative medical program, you have to support single-payer healthcare, which works in the vast majority of industrialized countries at MUCH cheaper rates with MUCH better quality--yet, you aren't for that.
    Your attempts to define reality in such a way that I must agree with you are ridiculous. Your claims of better quality are a joke, requiring you to ignore the problems of these other systems. I'm done entertaining such wishful thinking based on half-truths.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Maybe your cheering for fiscal responsibility is just a mask for hating anything done by government...except, of course, if it's run by the party you support.
    Or maybe you are just continuing your pathetic attempt to define my views for me, instead of accepting what I'm telling you my own views are.

    You can keep repeating falsehoods about what I've said if you wish, but my position isn't any different because of it. I'd suggest you stop distorting what I've said.

    Let me repeat it so, you can't reasonably claim ignorance. I am not for fiscal irresponsibility and big spending based on what administration is in office. You claiming that this is the case is a lie, plain and simple. So kindly stop with that nonsense.

    KAM
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1333  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Lest you have forgotten, the last administration WAS a Republican one.
    Lest you don't understand reality. A subset of some Republicans does not define all Republicans.

    I've still not heard you state any references to your specific claim.


    KAM
  14. Maturin's Avatar
    Posts
    165 Posts
    Global Posts
    166 Global Posts
    #1334  
    Good evening, everyone. I'm new to this thread. So, is there any specific point that most everyone agrees on in this healthcare debate?
    What I mean is, are we trying to understand from all sides an issue that could have a dramatic effect on us, or is everyone here just rehashing the same old partisan talking points? Debating for the sake of debating?
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1335  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    "The Earth is round. " False

    "The Theory of Evolution explains how we are here." False

    Being oblivious and distrustful of scientific methods don't help your case...
    First, even Obama backed off the 46 million uninsured line. Second, here's a good critique of that fallacious Himmelstein/Woodhandler study on medical bankruptcies.

    If you're going to equate the certainty of those statistics to the certainty of a round earth then you're exercising much more unscientific faith than I am.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1336  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The is a difference between creating big government to enrich the wealthy versus creating big government to help the vulnerable.
    This is a fine example of the falsehoods you seem to adhere to. Government CANNOT enrich anyone--they don't have money (although they can print money--not the same thing).

    The lie you are attempting to perpetuate here is that the Wealthy keeping some of their own money is government giving them something.

    The Fact is the Wealthy pay the vast majority of the taxes and that money IS given to the vulnerable. Yet instead of admitting that these "wealthy" and their money fund ALL of these programs you so love, you attack them.

    That sort of nonsense sells to the uneducated perhaps--which explains how Democrats continue to buy votes. THEY claim to provide for the poor and vulnerable, when they don't pay for anything at all (well excepting their personal taxes...when they pay them), they just take the Wealthy folks money and take the credit.

    KAM
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1337  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Really, Obama said BIG government is the best solution? (What you're claiming you're against). Where?
    Its hard to keep up with the pace of your distortions here. I didn't claim that Obama claimed he was for "big government." That was your question. I responded that he points to government for solutions.

    However, if it makes you happy, and knowing that actions speak louder than words. I would refer you to the Stimulus Package--which is BIG government spending. Spending the President Defined IS stimulus (which of course is idiotic and proving to be untrue).

    President Obama doesn't need to say he is for BIG government, when he's demonstrating it through his actions.

    KAM
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1338  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It's not a sham number. Just because the interests who stand the lose the most with healthcare reform have made up talking points (which seem to change all the time, by the way) to make people distrust this number does not make them right.

    If you don't believe this number and all the other evidence for a healthcare crisis in America, how do you justify coming up with your direct-pay alternative to the current healthcare reform bills? If there's no problem, shouldn't we just keep the status quo?
    Even President Obama has used 30 Million. Further, throwing around that 46 million number as some monolithic representation is another distortion. Of course, you've previously tried to forward the lie that significant portions of these 46 million victims (as you characterize them) CHOOSE not to carry insurance. This 46 million person club that dishonest folks like to use is at best inaccurate. I'd prefer to look at those number in a substantive way, instead as a political ploy--like you are doing here.

    You just can't stop making up lies can you? I didn't say there is no problem, and in fact, I've said there is. I simply don't take a problem as a reason to buy into idiotic ideas--such as this current "reform" plan. Rather, I advocate useful solutions to problems.

    You are providing an excellent example of the deception that is going on here--forwarding the lie that the choice is this bill or nothing, which is of course a total lie. There are many possibilities and plenty of time to consider them (none of these programs are set to start until 2013. This "crisis" mentality and rush is totally politically motivated, and reveals the deceptive nature of politicians (and their supporters) pushing for this.

    No, to again make it clear--I support a variety of reform efforts--actual reform, not the unsustainable expansion of failure that you seem to support.

    KAM
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1339  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    That "critique" unfortunately bolsters its argument that medical problems don't cause the majority of bankrupsies by citing far older analyses. The whole point of the Himmelstein/Woodhandler article is that, with such quickly rising medical costs since 2000, the costs have overwhelmed Ameericans into bankrupsy.

    The critique also falsely states that the authors don't explain how they chose the 1000-ish cases to review--they plainly state that they were randomly selected--a staple of statistics.

    1000 records can't possible represent 1 million people? Welcome to the world of random sampling. The author of the critique seems surprisingly ignorant on this entire world of scientific analysis.
    And you agree that a person who goes into bankruptcy with $50,000 of debt and only $1100 of medical debt should be classified as a medical bankruptcy? You agree that "uncontrolled gambling" should be listed as an illness for which a person should be included in the group of medical bankruptcies?
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1340  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If actions is all that is necessary, Republicans are for big government too--as seen by the quadupling of government and the doubling of the debt under Bush.

    Even Reagan made us go from the world biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation.
    And? You, keep on repeating this as if it has ANY bearing on what I support or do not support. YOU decide things based on the party affiliation. Stop projecting that on me.

    Additionally, if you bothered to look you would find that debt increases are largely due to spending on entitlement programs--even with two wars.

    Obviously, ALL increases are due to government spending, which I want to reduce. You want to increase it. So, once again, my position is consistent--no matter how many times you repeat something I disagree with as if I support it.

    You are going to have to try something new I'm afraid. Your accusation just does not apply to me.

    KAM

Posting Permissions