Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 567
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As I said in an earlier post....you just can't say they were wrong without developing some kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory. You are willing to say that's not how you feel...but you just can't say it was outrageous and let it go at that, can you?
    I said those things exactly a few posts ago. Please scroll up and read my post on that topic.

    In the case of my post to you, I was using something we like to call sarcasm about your statement that it was THE PROBLEM... it was supposed to make you laugh, not flame.
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Nobody? Okay, I’ll tell you whats wrong with it. By equating the call for a “literacy test” as a requirement to vote with a return “Jim Crow laws” one is making the claim that restricting the rights of the illiterate is de facto restricting the rights of minorities. I personally see no correlation between intellectual ability and race but, hey, I’m not a liberal.
    Bingo! I thought stupid was pretty color blind. Apparently the liberals have discovered that is is genetic? Wow, how can that not be labeled as racist.
  3.    #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    The CBO has been wrong before. Assuming they are wrong now doesn't make it a lie.

    Assuming they are right, it will only matter if 100% of the savings goes directly to pay down the debt created to get all of those savings.

    By the way, that whole line of only one third of elderly had health care... you should probably tell us your source for that... and also recognize it was a different world then. Not many people had insurance, not many people had huge credit card debt. Not many people had braces, and on it goes. Lack of insurance doesn't equal lack of health care. Especially back then. People paid cash and took responsibility for their own well being. (At least that's how it looked on Leave it to Beaver)

    You can't quote statistics from 60 years ago to explain why you want to shift a tectonic plate in 2010.

    That's another penalty.
    I stand corrected. Half of the elderly had no health insurance. Only a third of those subsequently covered by Medicare had health insurance (the difference includes the disabled). That info is easily available and I've posted links to it before. Feel free to look for it if you want.

    I also quoted the fact that 30-40 million people right now have limited or inadequate access to care, and somehow your charity hasn't helped them. That's not from 60 years ago. The fact is that Medicare was a wonderful program that provides care to those who need it at a reasonable cost...and it is greatly appreciated by those who have it. Guess what? It's a government program, and the fact that you don't like it really has very little bearing on whether it's successful or valued by those that have it. But by all means, see if you can get your republican buddies to try and take it away.

    Feel free to distrust the CBO...but saying there is a possibility they might be wrong is not the same as saying they are lying. There is no evidence whatsoever that this bill will bankrupt the country, and all the evidence we do have says that won't be the case.
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    One more reason for less govt, not more govt...
    Please review: Sarcasm.
  5. #165  
    "NO HEALTH CARE!!!!!" ummm ok... do these people realize what they are screaming...
    Life moves fast, don't miss a thing
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I stand corrected. Half of the elderly had no health insurance. Only a third of those subsequently covered by Medicare had health insurance (the difference includes the disabled). That info is easily available and I've posted links to it before. Feel free to look for it if you want.

    I also quoted the fact that 30-40 million people right now have limited or inadequate access to care, and somehow your charity hasn't helped them. That's not from 60 years ago. The fact is that Medicare was a wonderful program that provides care to those who need it at a reasonable cost...and it is greatly appreciated by those who have it. Guess what? It's a government program, and the fact that you don't like it really has very little bearing on whether it's successful or valued by those that have it. But by all means, see if you can get your republican buddies to try and take it away.

    Feel free to distrust the CBO...but saying there is a possibility they might be wrong is not the same as saying they are lying. There is no evidence whatsoever that this bill will bankrupt the country, and all the evidence we do have says that won't be the case.
    First, if the govt takes it in taxes, I don't have it left in my wallet to give. But I'm just saying that we've all accepted that as the role of government. Obviously, it would take a transition to move that load off of washington.

    In terms of the "uninsured" numbers, you can make numbers say anything. As I pointed out, insurance wasn't as common or essential. In modern times, not all uninsured WANT to be. My father-in-law just died at 83, and it was expensive. He paid for the whole thing, cash, up front. Just like he did all the cavities his kids got. He wasn't rich, he had catastrophic coverage, but 95% of his expenses he paid our of the insurance premiums he saved. That's what I'm saying. The arguments for health care rely on many many assumptions. You have to get underneath the assumptions and do a genuine root-cause analysis.

    My daughter chooses to have only catastrophic coverage. If something small happens, I'll pay for it. She will have to change careers (and move to a different city) if congress mandates that she has to by the healthcare they decide she needs.

    Before you throw out a number like that, let's first validate a few things, like how they came up with them. What the underlying fundamentals are, etc.

    Heck, you can assume many of those people that need insurance are already dead - just like you have dead people casting votes when voter fraud is committed (can anyone say CHICAGO and not remember that from history). A more recent example is minnesota, where Al Franken won an election where many counties had more votes than they have citizens! This isn't about election fraud, Al Franken, etc so don't chase that bunny.

    The point is that a raw number means nothing.

    Remember when everyone said Regan was "cutting govt programs"? He didn't actually cut them, he cut their "growth". They got more money every year, just not the same % increase as previous. But that was spun to mean he was cutting funds and hurting people.

    See? both sides have to be careful about tossing numbers around and drawing silly conclusions.

    ...I'm just sayin'
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/18/2010 at 04:16 PM.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    This bill allows for death panels that will kill your elderly parents.
    Here you go. I don't believe that is true, and I dislike that sort of rhetoric. However, it is possible that care will be rationed--because it happens now. President Obama spoke to this directly, stating that it might be more cost effective to give someone pain pills, rather than an expensive operation. That may be true, but it isn't a "lie" to ask--well, who makes that decision.

    Simply put--people that hold the purse strings influences the decisions, no matter who that is (insurance companies or government). I'm sure you'd agree that Medicare does not pay for anything and everything, nor does insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    This bill is a government takeover of the health care system.
    Perhaps true, but considering that people here on this board (I don't recall if you are one of them) and politicians have stated openly this is a "first step" and that they want to pursue a public option and even single payer (which you advocate) is certainly isn't a stretch for someone to then state what YOU'VE stated--this is a step in that direction--a direction to Government Health Care.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    This bill will put us in a greater debt than we will be in without any action at all.
    Let's not be naive. There are two components here. Whether or not this adds to the Debt is completely dependent on how much tax they collect. This bill has a cost. It does not REDUCE costs, or SAVE anything, without an increase in more collected from the public. This whole thing is slight of hand--the reality is this will cost additional money. Whether it is offset by taxes fully or not is in question.

    Secondly, CBO as honest as they might be CANNOT anticipate actual costs, and government programs have a history of going far beyond what they estimated many times more--not 10% more. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--ALL examples of exactly that.

    So, it certainly isn't a LIE to learn from history. It is a LIE to state something is a fact, when at best, it is a guess. THAT'S what the CBO report is--a guess.

    So, there you go--one out of three I would consider a lie. The other two--well, that's something more akin to "likely possibilities."

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Using the logic of the OP, since the people in this video are obviously crass inconsiderate and plain old mean, and American, then all Americans are crass, inconsiderate, and mean.
    That axe definitely swings both ways. I was spit on several times by 'peaceniks' in the early 70s simply because I was wearing a military uniform. It happened to me again in the 80s in Vancouver because I steamed in to port on an escort for the USS Long Beach, a nuclear cruiser - this time by Green Peace activists. I literally had to run a gauntlet of them who pushed, shoved, spit, and screamed as I made my way to the nearest taxi stand with my dufflebag.

    Their points of concern and interests may have been legitimate, but mob mentality sometimes takes over and people can get hostile; this (rightly or not) discredits/tarnishes their platform/position.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That axe definitely swings both ways. I was spit on several times by 'peaceniks' in the early 70s simply because I was wearing a military uniform. It happened to me again in the 80s in Vancouver because I steamed in to port on an escort for the USS Long Beach, a nuclear cruiser - this time by Green Peace activists. I literally had to run a gauntlet of them who pushed, shoved, spit, and screamed as I made my way to the nearest taxi stand with my dufflebag.

    Their points of concern and interests may have been legitimate, but mob mentality sometimes takes over and people can get hostile; this (rightly or not) discredits/tarnishes their platform/position.
    Thank you for your service. You gave up a great deal for us, and I want you to know that I appreciate that (and you for being willing to do so.)
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Please review: Sarcasm.
    So are you saying my comment wasn't sharp, or that it wasn't funny? Ouch.

    It probably wasn't, but it struck me as funny to see the thread boiled down to THE PROBLEM being that "no one knows" the beliefs of a lunatic-fringe group. I'll try to hone my sense of irony and my sense of humor to be sharper and funnier.

    i appreciate the feedback, because that's how I learn...
  11.    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    First, if the govt takes it in taxes, I don't have it left in my wallet to give. But I'm just saying that we've all accepted that as the role of government. Obviously, it would take a transition to move that load off of washington.

    In terms of the "uninsured" numbers, you can make numbers say anything. As I pointed out, insurance wasn't as common or essential. In modern times, not all uninsured WANT to be. My father-in-law just died at 83, and it was expensive. He paid for the whole thing, cash, up front. Just like he did all the cavities his kids got. He wasn't rich, he had catastrophic coverage, but 95% of his expenses he paid our of the insurance premiums he saved. That's what I'm saying. The arguments for health care rely on many many assumptions. You have to get underneath the assumptions and do a genuine root-cause analysis.

    My daughter chooses to have only catastrophic coverage. If something small happens, I'll pay for it. She will have to change careers (and move to a different city) if congress mandates that she has to by the healthcare they decide she needs.

    Before you throw out a number like that, let's first validate a few things, like how they came up with them. What the underlying fundamentals are, etc.

    Heck, you can assume many of those people that need insurance are already dead - just like you have dead people casting votes when voter fraud is committed (can anyone say CHICAGO and not remember that from history). A more recent example is minnesota, where Al Franken won an election where many counties had more votes than they have citizens! This isn't about election fraud, Al Franken, etc so don't chase that bunny.

    The point is that a raw number means nothing.

    Remember when everyone said Regan was "cutting govt programs"? He didn't actually cut them, he cut their "growth". They got more money every year, just not the same % increase as previous. But that was spun to mean he was cutting funds and hurting people.

    See? both sides have to be careful about tossing numbers around and drawing silly conclusions.

    ...I'm just sayin'
    Since you are using the term root-cause analysis, my assumption is that you actually know something about what you're talking about, and that is a rare thing around here. Now...

    Your father-in-law would probably be considered extraordinarily lucky, don't you think? What if he had a chronic illness? What if he had gotten ill with a non-fatal disease much earlier in his life? His saved premiums would have been gone in a five-day hospitalization. And I can't help but ask, since he was that age....did he not have Medicare? Are you saying he refused to accept Medicare coverage? That would make him even more extraordinary. I'd love to hear more details about this.

    Saying all uninsured don't want to be just brings up the same old situation that we have discussed ad nauseum on this forum. If someone chooses to not buy insurance, and shows up severely injured in the ER, are they to be turned away? Who will pay for their care? If a diabetic with no insurance and no preventive care shows up with a gangrenous foot, you're going to tell them to go home? Or an asthmatic child who has received no outpatient management because his family has no insurance comes in the ER with an asthma attack? Or instead, are you going to do what we already do....provide extraordinarily inefficient, ineffective emergency care instead of emphasizing prevention and routine primary care. And that way the hospitals can lose money, and cut back on services, or pass along the deficit to you and your insurance company if they're lucky.

    Are you personally willing to stand in the ER and send them out? Or do you want someone else to do it? As I've said many times before, conservative ideas are long on theory and very short on reality and process. Get specific.
  12. #172  
    I just LOVE how idiots like the OP just assume that one guy who may or may not be an insensitive *******...is representative of a whole movement! That's like the moron from MSNBC calling all Tea Party people racists because there aren't as many black faces as he'd like to see!! Unbelievable how asinine this how thread is...

    That being said, I consider myself a liberal...a REAL liberal...not this poseur crap my fellow Americans spout... It's rather ironic that after 3 decades of toeing the party line that the Federal Government has no right to tell women what to do with their bodies (Roe v. Wade) that they're throwing that out the window with this healthcare proposal!! I guess that's what's great about being an American Liberal...you can change your mind about anything because that's what being open to suggestion means! Not having to stand up for what you believe in because anything is possible so how can one view be right over another!! Lol

    Of course, I would like to see free healthcare for all. Why not? We've spent so much fighting wars....what's another few billion?? or trillion? It's not as if the U.S. will ever pay it back! But what Obama is proposing is laughable...as laughable as the people who put him in office!


    ***BTW....What the HECK does this have to do with Palm...or the PRE or PIXI??? heh heh
    Last edited by couch1970; 03/18/2010 at 05:13 PM.
  13.    #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by couch1970 View Post
    I just LOVE how idiots like the OP just assume that one guy who may or may not be an insensitive *******...is representative of a whole movement! That's like the moron from MSNBC calling all Tea Party people racists because there aren't as many black faces as he'd like to see!! Unbelievable how asinine this how thread is...

    That being said, I consider myself a liberal...a REAL liberal...not this poseur crap my fellow Americans spout... It's rather ironic that after 3 decades of toeing the party line that the Federal Government has no right to tell women what to do with their bodies (Roe v. Wade) that they're throwing that out the window with this healthcare proposal!! I guess that's what's great about being an American Liberal...you can change your mind about anything because that's what being open to suggestion means! Not having to stand up for what you believe in because anything is possible so how can one view be right over another!! Lol

    Of course, I would like to see free healthcare for all. Why not? We've spent so much fighting wars....what's another few billion?? or trillion? It's not as if the U.S. will ever pay it back! But what Obama is proposing is laughable...as laughable as the people who put him in office!


    ***BTW....What the HECK does this have to do with Palm...or the PRE or PIXI??? heh heh
    Right. I can spot those liberals a mile away. As the ***** who started the thread, allow me to say that if you think there was one person involved, or that the same kind of hateful behavior hasn't been a part of every teabagger meeting covered, then you just haven't been watching. This bill does nothing to the Hyde amendment. I am devoutly supportive of choice, and even those wingnut democrats that were following Stupak now agree that this does not affect abortion rights. And sorry if I am skeptical of your true inclinations. Somehow you just don't seem like a liberal. Or a "real" liberal, whatever that is.

    Are these despicable people representative of every conservative who wants small government? Of course not. But they are representative of the lunatic fringe that embraces Tancredo, carries lying posters that say "Grandma is not shovel ready" and in general shows their lack of comprehension on a regular basis. As I've said, I'd be delighted if people of all sides of the discussion just agree that this is reprehensible behavior and let it go at that...but some just can't seem to do it. Can you, Mr. Liberal?
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Since you are using the term root-cause analysis, my assumption is that you actually know something about what you're talking about, and that is a rare thing around here. Now...

    Your father-in-law would probably be considered extraordinarily lucky, don't you think? What if he had a chronic illness? What if he had gotten ill with a non-fatal disease much earlier in his life? His saved premiums would have been gone in a five-day hospitalization. And I can't help but ask, since he was that age....did he not have Medicare? Are you saying he refused to accept Medicare coverage? That would make him even more extraordinary. I'd love to hear more details about this.

    Saying all uninsured don't want to be just brings up the same old situation that we have discussed ad nauseum on this forum. If someone chooses to not buy insurance, and shows up severely injured in the ER, are they to be turned away? Who will pay for their care? If a diabetic with no insurance and no preventive care shows up with a gangrenous foot, you're going to tell them to go home? Or an asthmatic child who has received no outpatient management because his family has no insurance comes in the ER with an asthma attack? Or instead, are you going to do what we already do....provide extraordinarily inefficient, ineffective emergency care instead of emphasizing prevention and routine primary care. And that way the hospitals can lose money, and cut back on services, or pass along the deficit to you and your insurance company if they're lucky.

    Are you personally willing to stand in the ER and send them out? Or do you want someone else to do it? As I've said many times before, conservative ideas are long on theory and very short on reality and process. Get specific.
    Ok, first. He wasn't lucky. He worked really hard and paid cash for everything. Second, he had a chronic illness for a long time, and then a major rush of expensive problems at the end. All cost money. He had medicare. My point was that for much of his life he carried catastrophic coverage, because he didn't have insurance available from his employer. That means he paid cash to the doctor for office visits, he paid cash when the kids had a cavity, etc. He was not wealthy, and he didn't have a lot. He just saved ahead, which was common for his generation. The same was true for my parents growing up. None of the people in their working class neighborhood had "insurance". And they got in big trouble when they got hurt playing, because doctors cost money. And they didn't run to the doctor for every little thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with having insurance or going to the doctor often.

    What I'm saying is, you can't use stats from 60 years ago and declare that 2/3 of the elderly didn't have insurance - and therefore didn't have healthcare. Heck, the Pilgrims didn't have insurance, but they had "healthcare" such as was available at that time.

    My other point wasn't that "none" of that thirty million want it. Probably most of them do. I would argue that you can't "legislate that they all must", and I am challenging the actual number. We hear big numbers thrown around all the time, and they grow like urban legends.

    Look at the rhetoric closely when you hear numbers thrown around. How many homeless? How many unemployed? What percentage of the population id gay?, what percent is obese? It only takes one statistics class to know how the original number is usually defined, and if you watch the news over the years you will see those numbers fluctuate wildly.

    Heck, congress is doing it right now. Someone brought up the Congressional Budget Office. Well, here is what they did. The first version that each house passed was declared a budget buster by OMB. Why did they say this one is more feasible? Did anything change - hardly.

    What congress did is they took a huge chunk of what was in the first bill and moved it under medicare. That means the money isn't calculated in the OMB analysis. But it means that Medicare will be even farther in the red and someone has to pay for it. They also have it set up so the taxes start accruing NOW, but the actual implementation wont start until.... after the next election. So they would theoretically save ahead. But once the programs are in place, they will burn through it fast. But by deferring the implementation, a huge chuck of that deficit is outside of the ten year window that OMB was asked to analyze.

    Does that sound intellectually honest to you? I feel like I have to take a shower after every time I hear a politician talk about it, because of how they are taking advantage of us and apparently believing we are too stupid to notice.

    And that was my point. Slight of hand by congress to make the numbers say what they want them to say. With a narrow enough set of facts, I can prove just about anything with that approach.

    And if you watch political pollsters, you know that samples can be manipulated based on how questions are asked, which ones are NOT asked, etc. Example, they kept saying that x% of Americans wanted change in this last election. They never bothered to ask "what kind" of change. So I think Obama mistook an angry electorate that just wanted the previous 8 years to go away. I know I did. But I think he assumed that people were giving him a mandate for thinks like socialized medicine and more federal govt.

    The change I had in mind was to find someone that would be more like Reagan. But that option wasn't on the Poll. It wasn't on the ballot either. And yes, If Mcain had won he would have been just like Bush.

    My point is that people stop throwing around random stats with no understanding of what is behind them, and generally how to interpret them.

    There are LOTS of ways to reduce the cost of healthcare, just like there were lots of ways to reduce the cost of telecommunications Do you remember what we used to pay for minute for cell phone usage? For roaming? For long distance minutes from our rotary phone at home?

    There is ONE sure fire way to run up national debt, make healthcare cost more, and make sure that the people that need it have a lower chance of getting help. And that would be.... wait for it.... to create a federal program to make it happen.

    That's how we wind up with the pentagon buying $900 hammers and $300 ashtrays like Al Gore told us about when he was on that "govt waste" taskforce.

    That's why they had to hire 11,000 people to administer the cash 4 clunkers program, and it still created huge financial problems for the dealers it was supposed to help. On what planet does that sound like good use of your taxes?

    That's why they earmarked something like $300m in the stimulus bill to create a survey current broadband services available in the US. You and I could probably complete that survey very quickly, and I bet you'd be willing to do it for a fraction of $300m. I know I would, and it would probably be more accurate.

    So don't get lost in the details. These are big picture issues about fundamental principles, based on understanding basic cause and effect - and from learning from history. Past behavior is ALWAYS the best predictor of future behavior. We should remember that any time someone says they want to be elected so they can get the govt to do something for you that you can do for yourself. They have enough to do about things that you and I can't do for ourselves. They need to manage infrastructure, public safety, foreign policy... I don't need them telling me how to run my personal budget.

    As I've said before, we are all required to carry uninsured motorist on our insurance to cover the case where we are hit by someone that doesn't have insurance. Great, let's do that for healthcare. Somehow car insurance keeps getting cheaper and they are advertising like crazy to win my business.

    Same with homeowners insurance. No way I could recover if my house was destroyed if I didn't have insurance. But somehow my insurance gets cheaper over time, and they advertise like crazy to compete. And I get to decide if I want a $100 deductible or a $10,000 deductible.

    Anyway. I hope you understand what I'm saying about numerical and root-cause analysis. If politicians understood either one, they couldn't possible do the stuff they do...
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/18/2010 at 06:14 PM.
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    President Obama spoke to this directly, stating that it might be more cost effective to give someone pain pills, rather than an expensive operation. That may be true, but it isn't a "lie" to ask--well, who makes that decision.
    That is factually wrong, despite spin to the contrary. He never said those decisions would be based upon cost effectiveness, but rather based upon evidence of effectiveness.

    His exact words were: "we can make sure that some of the waste that is not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."

    You'll note that his entire point, spin to the contrary, was that doctors and patients should make decisions.

    It is a LIE to state something is a fact, when at best, it is a guess. THAT'S what the CBO report is--a guess.
    It's also a lie to state something as a fact, when it is factually untrue and has been pointed out as such in the past.
    Last edited by Bujin; 03/18/2010 at 06:16 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post

    Are you personally willing to stand in the ER and send them out? Or do you want someone else to do it? As I've said many times before, conservative ideas are long on theory and very short on reality and process. Get specific.
    I think you are a smart guy. After all , you bought a Palm phone! But stop asking if we are willing to denounce the morons in that video and acknowledge that several of us have. And if you can assume that everyone against socialized medicine is like the people in that video, you can use the same logic to assume every conservative in this forum is like the ones that have denounced it, including me. Seriously, that argument stopped working the second you asked, and we chimed in to denounce and decry. You need some new material.
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    What congress did is they took a huge chunk of what was in the first bill and moved it under medicare. That means the money isn't calculated in the OMB analysis. But it means that Medicare will be even farther in the red and someone has to pay for it. They also have it set up so the taxes start accruing NOW, but the actual implementation wont start until.... after the next election. So they would theoretically save ahead. But once the programs are in place, they will burn through it fast. But by deferring the implementation, a huge chuck of that deficit is outside of the ten year window that OMB was asked to analyze.
    That entire point is factually untrue. The CBO clearly stated that (a) Medicare will be solvent longer under this new plan, and (b) the savings in the second 10 year period will actually be much larger: $130B in the first 10 years, and $1.2T in the second 10 years.

    Facts do indeed matter.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That is factually wrong, despite spin to the contrary. He never said those decisions would be based upon cost effectiveness, but rather based upon evidence of effectiveness.

    His exact words were: "we can make sure that some of the waste that is not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller."

    You'll note that his entire point, spin to the contrary, was that doctors and patients should make decisions.



    It's also a lie to state something as a fact, when it is factually untrue and has been pointed out as such in the past.
    Truth... he tells the truth!!!!

    Republicans should have came out with a plan... then maybe we can compare and contrast. Instead, all we have is hot air...

    Republican: I don't like obama's plan. I know we need a plan, but I don't have anything to offer. I know, it is socialism.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19.    #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Ok, first. He wasn't lucky. He worked really hard and paid cash for everything. Second, he had a chronic illness for a long time, and then a major rush of expensive problems at the end. All cost money. He had medicare. My point was that for much of his life he carried catastrophic coverage, because he didn't have insurance available from his employer. That means he paid cash to the doctor for office visits, he paid cash when the kids had a cavity, etc. He was not wealthy, and he didn't have a lot. He just saved ahead, which was common for his generation. The same was true for my parents growing up. None of the people in their working class neighborhood had "insurance". And they got in big trouble when they got hurt playing, because doctors cost money. And they didn't run to the doctor for every little thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with having insurance or going to the doctor often.

    What I'm saying is, you can't use stats from 60 years ago and declare that 2/3 of the elderly didn't have insurance - and therefore didn't have healthcare. Heck, the Pilgrims didn't have insurance, but they had "healthcare" such as was available at that time.

    My other point wasn't that "none" of that thirty million want it. Probably most of them do. I would argue that you can't "legislate that they all must", and I am challenging the actual number. We hear big numbers thrown around all the time, and they grow like urban legends.

    Look at the rhetoric closely when you hear numbers thrown around. How many homeless? How many unemployed? What percentage of the population id gay?, what percent is obese? It only takes one statistics class to know how the original number is usually defined, and if you watch the news over the years you will see those numbers fluctuate wildly.

    Heck, congress is doing it right now. Someone brought up the Congressional Budget Office. Well, here is what they did. The first version that each house passed was declared a budget buster by OMB. Why did they say this one is more feasible? Did anything change - hardly.

    What congress did is they took a huge chunk of what was in the first bill and moved it under medicare. That means the money isn't calculated in the OMB analysis. But it means that Medicare will be even farther in the red and someone has to pay for it. They also have it set up so the taxes start accruing NOW, but the actual implementation wont start until.... after the next election. So they would theoretically save ahead. But once the programs are in place, they will burn through it fast. But by deferring the implementation, a huge chuck of that deficit is outside of the ten year window that OMB was asked to analyze.

    Does that sound intellectually honest to you? I feel like I have to take a shower after every time I hear a politician talk about it, because of how they are taking advantage of us and apparently believing we are too stupid to notice.

    And that was my point. Slight of hand by congress to make the numbers say what they want them to say. With a narrow enough set of facts, I can prove just about anything with that approach.

    And if you watch political pollsters, you know that samples can be manipulated based on how questions are asked, which ones are NOT asked, etc. Example, they kept saying that x% of Americans wanted change in this last election. They never bothered to ask "what kind" of change. So I think Obama mistook an angry electorate that just wanted the previous 8 years to go away. I know I did. But I think he assumed that people were giving him a mandate for thinks like socialized medicine and more federal govt.

    The change I had in mind was to find someone that would be more like Reagan. But that option wasn't on the Poll. It wasn't on the ballot either. And yes, If Mcain had won he would have been just like Bush.

    My point is that people stop throwing around random stats with no understanding of what is behind them, and generally how to interpret them.

    There are LOTS of ways to reduce the cost of healthcare, just like there were lots of ways to reduce the cost of telecommunications Do you remember what we used to pay for minute for cell phone usage? For roaming? For long distance minutes from our rotary phone at home?

    There is ONE sure fire way to run up national debt, make healthcare cost more, and make sure that the people that need it have a lower chance of getting help. And that would be.... wait for it.... to create a federal program to make it happen.

    That's how we wind up with the pentagon buying $900 hammers and $300 ashtrays like Al Gore told us about when he was on that "govt waste" taskforce.

    That's why they had to hire 11,000 people to administer the cash 4 clunkers program, and it still created huge financial problems for the dealers it was supposed to help. On what planet does that sound like good use of your taxes?

    That's why they earmarked something like $300m in the stimulus bill to create a survey current broadband services available in the US. You and I could probably complete that survey very quickly, and I bet you'd be willing to do it for a fraction of $300m. I know I would, and it would probably be more accurate.

    So don't get lost in the details. These are big picture issues about fundamental principles, based on understanding basic cause and effect - and from learning from history. Past behavior is ALWAYS the best predictor of future behavior. We should remember that any time someone says they want to be elected so they can get the govt to do something for you that you can do for yourself. They have enough to do about things that you and I can't do for ourselves. They need to manage infrastructure, public safety, foreign policy... I don't need them telling me how to run my personal budget.

    As I've said before, we are all required to carry uninsured motorist on our insurance to cover the case where we are hit by someone that doesn't have insurance. Great, let's do that for healthcare. Somehow car insurance keeps getting cheaper and they are advertising like crazy to win my business.

    Same with homeowners insurance. No way I could recover if my house was destroyed if I didn't have insurance. But somehow my insurance gets cheaper over time, and they advertise like crazy to compete. And I get to decide if I want a $100 deductible or a $10,000 deductible.

    Anyway. I hope you understand what I'm saying about numerical and root-cause analysis. If politicians understood either one, they couldn't possible do the stuff they do...
    Sorry...you need to do better. First, you can expound about cash for clunkers, and auto insurance, and Al Gore, and excessive defense spending. You have not answered my question. I happen to be where the rubber hits the road. I asked you to be specific, because I have to every day. Don't get lost in the details? It's the details that matter to me.

    I also have no idea what you mean when you talk about "numbers being thrown around". If you're talking about the uninsured, and you want that information, here's a link I've already posted twice in the past.

    Overview of the Uninsured in the United States: An analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey: Issue Brief

    And finally, while I'm not characterizing your father-in-law story, the fact that he had "a major rush of expensive problems at the end" when he had Medicare seems to be a bit of an oxymoron. End of life care is covered by Medicare for a period of time, and after that is usually picked up by Medicaid. Did his "expensive problems" wipe out his savings? Was his family responsible for paying for it? Or did Medicare, that horrible public option?

    Ignore the details if you want...but it doesn't help your argument. I want to know what to do at work tomorrow. Please tell me.
  20.    #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I think you are a smart guy. After all , you bought a Palm phone! But stop asking if we are willing to denounce the morons in that video and acknowledge that several of us have. And if you can assume that everyone against socialized medicine is like the people in that video, you can use the same logic to assume every conservative in this forum is like the ones that have denounced it, including me. Seriously, that argument stopped working the second you asked, and we chimed in to denounce and decry. You need some new material.

    Just read post 190, in which I stated those people are not representative of all conservatives. And then please address the details you seem to want to avoid.
Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131419 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions