Page 70 of 71 FirstFirst ... 206065666768697071 LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,400 of 1405
  1. #1381  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Right. They are.
    Are we basing bias on "dissagreement with your position", or do you have a basis for that charge?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2.    #1382  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Are you claiming that PolitiFact's evidence is wrong or biased?
    1 Which of Glenn Becks evidence is wrong?
    2 What is his bias?
    3 Have YOU ever watched Glenn Beck's show (other than youtube clips)?
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1383  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Are we basing bias on "dissagreement with your position", or do you have a basis for that charge?
    Bujin, it's an opinion poll. Read their methodology. I could find "unbiased experts" by the boatload.... it doesn't mean that their opinions are "facts".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1384  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, if I'm going to decide to believe a study from the non-partisan CBO, or one that claims impartiality but is wholly owned by the insurance industry, I'd tend to go with the CBO. You can choose otherwise, if it's convenient for you.
    You mean the CBO who's director works under Speaker Pelosi and came from a center-left think tank?
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1385  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    But, the CBO doesn't say it will be expensive. It actually says it will reduce the deficit in 10 years.
    Now it does. As you well know, that hasn't always been the case. Makes one wonder what changed.
  6. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1386  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    How they are financing it has changed; the amount of subsidy and who will be subsidized had changed.

    The original CBO estimates made in front of Senator Baucus' committee months ago were based upon possibilities, not one fully-realized bill. The latest CBO figures were based on the bill as it stood at the time.

    There have been more significant changes yesterday and today. The CBO will weigh in about those soon.

    Again, why are conservatives suddenly so interested in the costs when no one brought up the costs when the Republican Medicare Mod Act passed ($1 trillion), or the tax cuts were passed ($5 trillion), or the wars started ($3 trillion)?
    Yes, I'm interested in seeing what the CBO, and some other "independent" economists, say after the public option has been renamed.
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1387  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The CBO has come up with alot of not-so-nice numbers. I guess he hasn't been trained by Pelosi and that think tank to do their biddings.
    And the Lewin Group has some studies that aren't so insurance-industry friendly as well. So, where does that leave us?
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1388  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If this were all renamed "single-payer medicine," ALL the costs would drop precipitously, as seen in most of the industrialized world.

    If the costs is really the big sticking point for you, then you must support single payer...
    I support choice.
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1389  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    As if you have choice now.

    In single payer countries, you can choose whatever doctor you want. With private insurance, you can't.
    What would my choice of coverage be? Who would I choose as my primary that would have time to see me considering single-payer countries are having a hard time finding enough GPs?
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1390  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    LOL--like we have a glut of GPs!

    Because there is more equality of doctor pay in single payer countries, medical students don't choose specialties significantly more than primary care. There isn't a shortage of primary care in most places like there is here.

    There is no choice of coverage. You are covered for everything.

    There is actually very little rationing there (unlike the rationing here by ability to pay and the profits of insurance companies) because, with each country having an actual budget for healthcare (unlike the US), tech and drug companies reduce prices so they can sell within that budget.
    Wow! So, under your single-payer plan, I can see any physician I want, whenever I need, for any procedure, and it will all be covered, with very little rationing, at less out of pocket cost to me? Sign me up for that plan!

    Seriosuly, though, you should white wash problems with single-payer health care. It doesn't help your case.
    Last edited by groovy; 12/09/2009 at 09:52 PM.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1391  
    Hello Everyone,

    Here's a rundown of some recent (and some not-so-recent) polls on Healthcare "reform."

    RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan

    So, what we have is a Congress and President determined to go against the wishes of the American Public--no matter the cost apparently.

    This likely isn't about any one, of the constantly changing plans the Congress is desperately trying to ram through, but rather an indication of how little confidence the American people have in government to "fix" things.

    KAM
  12. #1392  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, what we have is a Congress and President determined to go against the wishes of the American Public--no matter the cost apparently.
    Let's also keep in mind that surveys show that an overwhelming majority (77% in this poll) of the American people support a public option for health care. So one can argue that the Republicans (and conservative Dems) are the ones going against the wishes of the people. And, of course, the CBO has clearly stated that the current plan will reduce the deficit, so your cost complaint may not be as accurate as you believe.

    SurveyUSA News Poll #15699
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1393  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Let's also keep in mind that surveys show that an overwhelming majority (77% in this poll) of the American people support a public option for health care. So one can argue that the Republicans (and conservative Dems) are the ones going against the wishes of the people. And, of course, the CBO has clearly stated that the current plan will reduce the deficit, so your cost complaint may not be as accurate as you believe.

    SurveyUSA News Poll #15699
    Yeah, if I'm reading that right--those polls are from last Summer. Why would you be trying to compare polls from 5 months ago to those now?

    Secondly, the continued claim that the people want the public option, but do not want healthcare reform is nonsensical. Your claim makes no sense. It's like asking if people want a drink and the vast majority of them saying no, and then stating that if they DID want a drink the majority would want Coca-cola. Whether or not they want Coke isn't valid if they don't want a drink at all. Of course, when you compare two polls that are months apart, it is an invalid comparison from square one.

    Further--which CBO estimate are you talking about? Which one represents the final bill (oh wait, none of them). One of the latest Senate ones (before this new Medicare thing) stated that it would end up increasing the costs by an additional 17-20% (as I recall) over doing nothing--for individuals not on group plans.

    In other words, this "reform" that was intended to REDUCE COSTS is predicted by the CBO to actually be worse than doing nothing for individuals.

    Further--I have to keep reminding people that "reducing the deficit" while an accurate term can be misleading. It DOES NOT mean less spending. It simply means that the taxation/fees are larger than the spending.

    I should also point out that the CBO can only evaluate what they are given--and the Democrats are controlling that, and it does not take into account the ever-changing nature of the bill, with amendments greatly impacting the cost, nor does it predict what the final version will cost. So, it isn't invalid, but it is hardly comprehensive.

    So, you've got an outdated poll vs current ones, a CBO analysis that you claim is favorable but is at best a snapshot and you ignore the detail behind "deficit reduction." Not a very strong case you are making there.

    KAM
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1394  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Let's also keep in mind that surveys show that an overwhelming majority (77% in this poll) of the American people support a public option for health care. So one can argue that the Republicans (and conservative Dems) are the ones going against the wishes of the people. And, of course, the CBO has clearly stated that the current plan will reduce the deficit, so your cost complaint may not be as accurate as you believe.

    SurveyUSA News Poll #15699
    Depends on how the question is asked. Here's a poll showing that 75% oppose raising their income taxes to pay for government efforts to make sure everyone is insured.

    http://surveys.ap.org/data%5CGfK%5CA...18%20edits.pdf
  15. jmelan's Avatar
    Posts
    29 Posts
    Global Posts
    37 Global Posts
    #1395  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Depends on how the question is asked. Here's a poll showing that 75% oppose raising their income taxes to pay for government efforts to make sure everyone is insured.

    http://surveys.ap.org/data%5CGfK%5CA...18%20edits.pdf
    great survey, important to read all of them as well

    is is disappointing that most americans oppose taxes on soft drinks. increased consumption in the past 20 years correllates well with obesity rates, as well as increasing healthcare costs. i think a little education could go a long way here. the increased tax on tobacco products has proven the power of economics already through decreased smoking rates.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1396  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelan View Post
    great survey, important to read all of them as well

    is is disappointing that most americans oppose taxes on soft drinks. increased consumption in the past 20 years correllates well with obesity rates, as well as increasing healthcare costs. i think a little education could go a long way here. the increased tax on tobacco products has proven the power of economics already through decreased smoking rates.
    They're not against the data or the need to live healthier lives. They are against the GOVERNMENT managing their choices and lives.
    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
    #1397  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    ...yet they want someone to pay when they end up in the hospital with diabetes and other obesity complications because of stupid lifestyle choices--that someone is usually the government.
    No, that someone is the taxpayer, or the other people paying into the insurance system, or the donations sponsored agency, or some/all of the above. The Goverment only prints money, or redistributes that which they've taken from others.
    The question about raising taxes should be asked another way: Which is better--raising taxes on soft drinks and government financial assistance to your local hospital to take care of you if you need it or no more taxes and no government money to the hospital?
    You really like to use that word "government" in front of anything financial, like it's some kind of sugar daddy that holds all the dough you just have to ask for.

    But have you stopped and thought about who will be paying the majority of these taxes that will be added to low cost junk foods? You'll essentially be taxing the working poor.

    Hang out at your local McDonalds for a few hours and tell us the mean income of it's customers. You might want to think this one through.
    Otherwise, of course, no one would be for raising taxes!
    Except you.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18.    #1398  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    But have you stopped and thought about who will be paying the majority of these taxes that will be added to low cost junk foods? You'll essentially be taxing the working poor.

    Hang out at your local McDonalds for a few hours and tell us the mean income of it's customers. You might want to think this one through.
    Gee, tax the ones who will be using the services. Isn't that a novel idea. (But, I personally am against using taxes as a whip to control behavior)
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1399  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    (But, I personally am against using taxes as a whip to control behavior)
    You've just recapped the current healthcare reform bill. There's no "reform" in it. It, in fact, restricts options and raises costs. It's a total sham.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1400  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelan View Post
    is is disappointing that most americans oppose taxes on soft drinks. increased consumption in the past 20 years correllates well with obesity rates, as well as increasing healthcare costs. i think a little education could go a long way here. the increased tax on tobacco products has proven the power of economics already through decreased smoking rates.
    How about this instead. Make people responsible for their own behavior. Stop making others responsible for paying for others healthcare, and you don't have to worry about taxing them.

    Why should I be taxed if I want to drink a bottle of coke once in a while, just because some other ***** drinks 10 a day and is 100 pounds over weight?

    Education? Is our educational system as is so pathetic that people aren't aware that consuming excessive sugar leads to weight gain? Likewise, as Smoking demonstrates--some people are going to smoke despite being told directly that doing so can kill you.

    Here's the easier and more direct option--stop burdening others with the idiotic choices of others. Let them be responsible for their own behavior.

    KAM

Posting Permissions