 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We're saying the same thing.. You make it sound like it's not the insurance companies fault, and I say they're loving every minute of it...
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I do.
excon
You're missing my point, Ex.
No, everyone SHOULDN'T be able to call home to talk to their mommy. Everyone SHOULD be able to call 911, and they can. Hook up a phone to a phone jack in any house, and most of the time, it's connected enough to call 911. That's it. You want to talk to your mommy, do it on your own dime. Hell, for $0.35, you can talk to your momma from a pay phone anywhere, for 4 whole minutes!
Look, I'm actually doing some studying up on economics in general right now (and let me tell you, the last 30 years of world econ scares the hell out of me). The state SHOULD have some commodities that they offer to EVERYONE--and they do. They have emergency services, they have road construction, they have the post office, there are zoos, there are public schools, what have you.
But by making healthcare socialist, you're ALSO offering up the idea that water, soap, heat, clothing and food should be socialist---after all, those are things that EVERYONE should have.
That's bull.
Yes, people should have access to water and heat and clothing and food--but what they can AFFORD should be what they get. How else are you going to make everyone ELSE pay their bills? I mean seriously--why SHOULD I pay my electric bill? The government says I should have it, at a price that ANYONE can afford! Why SHOULD I pay my water bill? EVERYONE should be able to have water! Why SHOULD I pay my medical bill--even though I was a lifelong smoker until I got cancer and THEN quit--the GOVERNMENT should pay for that too!
Screw that.
People make choices. Sometimes the choice is to smoke or not. Sometimes it is whether to do drugs. Sometimes it's whether to shut off the TV and get out and exercise. Sometimes the choice is to parent a child they can't afford on their own instead of choosing adoption.
People should LIVE with the results of their choices. If you can't afford to pay your mortgage, you sure as HELL shouldn't have cable TV, a cell phone, and high speed internet. If you can't afford to pay for insurance, then you should make some healthy LIFESTYLE choices--don't smoke, exercise, eat healthy: in other words, minimize your chances of needing medical care in the first place.
I frankly do not feel sorry for many of these people who do not have insurance. I'm sure they've made choices at some point or another that led them to the point they're at. The percentage of people who TRULY had nothing to do with the point they're at for medical bills (an accident, HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, they were pushed off a bridge by a maniac, whatever) is relatively small.
But again--let's try fixing the system we HAVE, instead of throwing a whole new system out there.
The thing is--it's the WHOLE system. It's welfare state of mind that this country has. It's the sense of entitlement people have for things that are NOT essential (how many Katrina victims in uninsurable houses had TVs? They couldn't afford to get out of town, but they had a TV and cable in their below-the-water-line house!). It's the attitude that so many people have that it's someone else's problem and that they can't fix it anyway. It's the "it's not my fault I lost my house, it's the fault of the bank that gave me the loan to begin with!" attitude.
But---there are ways OUT of poverty. It just means you have to make sacrifices on your way out, it all--and most people aren't willing to do so. So yes--I see this as the middle class once again paying for the poor to sit on their asses, watch Oprah on their cable TV, get a check every month, and have too many kids.
The "I'm all right jack" mentality works well while you are in full health and have a good job. But I have observed that the costs of health care in your economy are much higher than they are elsewhere and you cannot say that the standard is that much greater after all we all enjoy the advances in medicine. So it seems your politicians are seeking to redress the part of the equation that is getting out of hand, and those who are making the money are screaming the loudest. I recall when it happened here 30 years ago, it was to be the end of life as we know it with all the attendant arguments; Lack of choice, lower standard of care, committing suicide, bankrupting the system, the end of the health insurance industry. In fact the only thing that happened was that the new system created the opportunity for some medical enterpreneurs to exploit the system and the costs were contained and regulated. The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford itQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
YOU LIE!
excon
You think I'm "making the money?" I AM the average Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Good for you, Clete. I still don't trust OUR government to completely overhaul the system.Quote:
I recall when it happened here 30 years ago, it was to be the end of life as we know it with all the attendant arguments; Lack of choice, lower standard of care, committing suicide, bankrupting the system, the end of the health insurance industry. In fact the only thing that happened was that the new system created the opportunity for some medical enterpreneurs to exploit the system and the costs were contained and regulated. The drug companies hate it, the would be millionaire doctors hate it, but the turn around in hospitals is quicker and everyone can afford it
Why would I lie, I just tell it like I see it. Did I say the system didn't have problems, No. But they don't arise from universal health care initiatives but from government bungling by trying to continually cut costs of service delivery. When a government runs out of money they will try to cut costs. The reality is that like everything else, those who have the most to loose pay the most and not the other way round. You cannot expect the poor to pay when they don't have the money, as is suggested by some lunatics here, but a nation full of sick people benefits no one. When you remove disadvantage you create the environment for growthQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I thought, being an Aussie and all, that you might misunderstand my comment. You did. Americans knew what I was saying. I was just repeating what our congressman Joe Wilson said to our president, Barack Obama during his speech to a joint session of congress.
I don't think you lie.
excon
Ok, you got me with that one, I was aware of the incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We are perhaps more civilised in our parliament, a politician who said that would be forced to withdraw or be ejected, out on his nellie so to speak. You can say the honorable gentleman is mistaken but any suggestion he is deliberately misleading the parliament without substantiation isn't allowed
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
As it should be here... But our right wing southern party forgot its southern manners.
excon
Actually, if you will read my posts, you will see that I have outlined several areas where there are problems with our system.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But NOT ONE OF THEM requires nationalization to fix the problems.
In fact, as you have repeatedly ignored, I have also proposed 11 items to fix the system without having to resort to nationalization.
So your post is a strawman... I never made such an argument.
What I said was that
1) the problems in our system do not constitute a "crisis" or even a widespread problem. The number of people who need help under our current system is actually very small,
2) nationalization will do nothing to solve those problems and in fact will INCREASE them to the point where they DO become a crisis, wherein accessibility and quality of care will both go down while cost goes up by as much as 500%, and
3) there are other ways to solve the problems we DO have that do not require the government to run health care.
All of these things are provable and have been amply documented.
Stop putting up strawman arguments and deal with facts.
Elliot
You inadvertently hit on the answer to your own question...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The key word is "properly". There is nothing that is "properly" going to take care of the average joe in Obamacare. They are, in fact, going to be taken care of very IMPROPERLY.
There is nothing in any of the current crop of health care bills that actually IMPROVES health care. The bills limit accessibility for old folks and people of "limited utility". They create economic DISINCENTIVES for doctors and other care and service providers, which will cause them to exit the practice of medicine and create a shortage of caregivers, just like in every other socialized medicine country in the world. And the US government has a history of paying MORE for health care than the private sector does, which means that costs are going to go up.
So if the goal and the outcome is NOT to improve health care, but rather to socialize it for its own sake, then the only conclusion is that the REAL goal is a takeover of up to 20% of the economy as a power grab.
In other words, the bills themselves prove my statement that improving health care is NOT the real goal of these bills.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yup, it's a commie plot... Can't argue with stuff like that. Just got to shake your head...
excon
Nope. It's not a "commie" plot. It's an OBAMA plot.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No different from the "plot" to become "emperor" that you claimed Bush was trying to do with the USA Patriot Act.
Difference is, Obama actually has taken over private companies... something Bush NEVER came close to doing.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
This is a good point---not that GWB wasn't an idiot on puppet strings, but that he never took over private businesses, and Obama HAS.
Maybe I wouldn't have such a sour taste in my mouth for the whole thing had it not been for bailouts of companies that used the bailout money for bonuses and trips to spas and such.
But it DOES come down to the fact that no one has shown me yet WHY UHC would be BETTER---just that it would be better for different people than it's good for now.
Sounds like Chicago-style economics to me.
Hello again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
It's NOT a good point. GW Bush inherited a robust economy, but when push came to shove, HE started the bailouts. HE doled out the first $700 BILLION! There's not ONE right winger out there who thinks the dufus had a real conservative bone in his body... Unless it's to make the bizarre comparison to Obama as the Wolverine just did...
But, the truth is our domestic car industry was going out of business. It was either let that happen or take them over... Had the LIBERAL spending DUFUS faced the same crisis, HE would have done the same thing...
Was it the RIGHT thing to have done?? THAT question has not yet been answered.
In terms of THIS DISCUSSION, however, I would only change TWO words in your assessment above, Synn... It's not going to be better for different people. It's going to be the SAME for MORE people.
excon
Synnen,Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Not just "a" private business, but quite a few of them. They have already taken over...
GM
Chrysler
AIG
CitiGroup
Bank of America
JP Morgan
Wells Fargo
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial
US Bancorp
Capital One
Regions Financial
AMEX
Bank of NY Mellon
State Street Corp
Discover Financial
And this is just through TARP and the auto bailouts. Cap & Trade would have taken over GE, Exxon-Mobile, Shell, and a bunch of other energy and electrical products producers. And the Health Care reform bills would allow the takeover of every hospital, doctors office, and medical provider, as well as pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.
That is some scary stuff...
Elliot
And with that statement alone, you just proved to have a very poor memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Bush inherrited a recession from Clinton. And he had a major terrorist attack in his 9th month in office... and got saddled with a recession that was all the worse because of the attack.
To fix it he cut taxes twice. It worked.
Bush didn't inherit a "robust economy".
Elliot
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. It is in fact one rung on Obama's redistribution of wealth/economic/social justice ladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Obama in 2001:
Quote:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Hello again,
So, can we agree that the opposition to Obamacare, is REALLY opposition to Obama in general?
It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...
So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.
excon
I'm still trying to figure out where any of these bills does the first thing to improve health care instead of rearranging health insuranceQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
So who is going to work for free? 100 % of the time? Wow, you really want to cause rationing and wait lines - make people work for free - yeah that is the answer. Heck, why is everything not for free? Why don't we have universal gas ,electric, phone, cable, grocery, clothing for "free?" The only way people will work for fre is if the government FORCES THEM to do so. Is this what you are advocating?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
G&P
Hello in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
No. Firemen are paid. VA doctors are paid. I don't understand the point you're making.
excon
Opposition to Obamacare is because it is a BAD PROPOSITION that will make things worse:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
1] No tort reform
Philip K. Howard: Why Medical Malpractice Reform Is Off Limits - WSJ.com
2] increases deficit by trillion per CBO
3] Modeled after national healthcare ala Canada or Britain. Canada allowes private care in 2005, why retrace their steps. Britain's NICE is a defacto rationing board.
4] It does not and cannot mandate HEALTHY behavior - such as losing weight, quitting , smoking, eating more vegetables, exercising more - that is an individuals choice and decision.
5] The current VA - government health system - is okay but a far cry from ideal. Why aim lower?
6] Does not address the shortage in primary care, in fact it will make it worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are hard choices to make: you cannot simply say that healthcare will be free - only the most gullible would believe that.
Healthcare will only be more acessable and affordable when competition is allowed and third party payors [ gov and or insurance companies ] role is reduced and the role of the individual is increased.
G&P
Yes they are paid, by TAXDOLLARS. An increase of a trillion in healthcare expenditures means an increase in a trillion in TAXES. Medicare part D has cost the taxpayors hundreds of millions in TAXES and you still have the "donut hole". $4 per rx per month at Walmart or your local pharmacy cost the taxpayor zilch. Who is most effiecient with your money, you or the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I guess this stems from my comment that you don't get a bill for calling 911.. Well, you don't. But, that doesn't mean I think it's free. Come on. Get serious.
excon
What do you mean I 'finally came out'. This isn't a new position for me. Where have you been?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In fact, OBAMA has made it clear that that is his position. He made this stuff very clear. He has stated that his GOAL is wealth redistribution, not improvement of the economic system... said it during the campaign and was proud of that position. In terms of health care, as far back as 2006, he was saying that his goal is a single-payer, government-controlled system, but that it would take time to get there. Obama has never made any qualms or tried to hide what his goals are. He has stated them very clearly.
Ummmm... nope. Because it would STILL be a bad idea. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea just because Obama didn't do something ELSE that was a bad idea.Quote:
So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.
Excon
I was against Hillarycare too... and nobody was taking over private companies back then. It was just a bad idea that hasn't improved with time.
But what this "muddled ball" shows us is that his attempt to control the economy isn't relegated to a single issue... it's an across-the-board takeover plan. Energy, finance, medical/health, industry, travel, education... all of these are areas where Obama has his fingers in the pie. And he wants more.
I didn't muddle these areas together. Obama did that all by his lonesome, by making those the areas that he decided to take over the economy. The issue isn't with me making this connection... it's with you being UNABLE to do so.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You've been reading that right wing propaganda again... Some people would rather believe the emails they get from Glenn Beck, rather than their lying eyes... Poor righty's.
excon
Are you arguing that Obama DIDN'T say that his goal was redistribution of wealth? Or are you arguing that Obama didn't say that his goal was a single-payer health care system?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Because both can be proven, they are both well documented. They were Obama's words, not Glenn Beck's.
This ain't coming from Glenn Beck, excon, much as you would wish it were that easy to dismiss. This is from Obama himself.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes. SHOW ME THE QUOTE.
excon
Excon,
Are you really going to make me find one of the most famous Obama quotes? The one he made to Joe the Plumber?
OK, if you insist.
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off [... ] if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
?Spread the Wealth?? - Political Punch
Personally, I think Obama made a mistake... he didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag. He didn't mean to let everyone know what his real goals are... but he couldn't keep his mouth shut.
And here is the citation... posted a number of times before... in which Obama states that his goal is a single payer health care system.
This one is from August 2008: Obama Touts Single-Payer System for Health Care - Washington Wire - WSJ
And this one is from back in 2003 at the AFL-CIO event... the really damning one where he promisses to be sneaky about it: YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance
Elliot
Hello again, El
You FAILED to post a quote where Obama said his "goal was redistribution of the wealth"...
That's FAILED, as in you CAN'T do it, as in, you are full of CRAP, as you always are.
In fact, you UNABLE to back up ANY of the garbage you spew around here??
excon
Nope, I am opposed on the merits.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Just jumped on board? We've argued over Obama's ideology, policies, tendencies, associations and all of that from the beginning.Quote:
It would HELP if we could distinguish what your arguments are REALLY in opposition to... Elliot has finally come out. He thinks it's all a plot. Steve just jumped on board. Tom has ALWAYS been there... In fact, ALL of you have always been there...
He doesn't even have a health care plan. But his willingness to take over so many private institutions is a huge red flag.Quote:
So, tell me this... IF Obama didn't take over GM, would his health care plan be cool with you?? Since you've muddeled it all up into one indistinguishable ball, and probably don't even know yourself, I'm just going to declare that you would.
I quoted his words, you don't believe him?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:
Maybe you just don't understand the native tongue very well. Spreading the wealth around is NOT saying his GOAL is the redistribution of wealth...
Saying his GOAL was a single payer system, is NOT saying that his GOAL is the redistribution of wealth...
I know you don't understand words too well, or how they fit together in a sentence, but give it a try for us... It's becoming harder and harder to figure out what the hell you're saying.
excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm sorry. I missed 'em. Please re-direct me.
excon
Really... so you don't see a connection between Obama saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and "wealth redistribution"?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Then that makes you the only person in the entire USA who can't make that connection.
Here's the exact words:
"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off if you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
Let me repeat that, but with commentary for the mentally impaired...
"I" - Then Senator and now President Barack Hussein Obama
"think" - has in mind, contemplates
"when you spread the wealth around" - when you engage in wealth redistribution
"it's good for everybody." - it is a goal worth accomplishing.
But apparently, what Obama said and what he meant are two different things, right excon? He didn't really mean those words.
>snicker<
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Yes, I DO see a CONNECTION. I can READ English after all. But, you CAN'T. You don't understand words. I see NOTHING about his GOALS. That would be NOTHING. I asked you to show me the QUOTE where he said that his GOALS were such and such, and you CANNOT do that. You absolutely CANNOT BACK UP the claims you make. THAT is abundantly clear. Anybody who can READ knows that to be so.
excon
Hello again, Elliot:
Ok, 2nd grade English.
1. When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
2. My goal is the redistribution of wealth.
Questions.
a: Are those two statements the SAME?
b: Are those two statements close?
c. When you say number #1, could it be construed that you mean number #2?
d. Could it be even remotely construed to mean number #2?
e. If you said sentence number #1 and sentence #2 were the same, what's wrong with you?
Here are the answers. a, NO. b, NO. c, NO. d, NO. e. You're a dining room table.
excon
Ah... I see your point... you're point is... COMPLETELY ABSENT.
And I suppose that the words "I am a proponent of a single payer system," don't mean that either.
Keep trying to twist out of it, excon. He said it, hea meant it, and you can't handle the fact that you're wrong, and you are twisting in the breeze to try and unhang yourself from your own string of BS.
If Obama is proposing a specific tax plan, and he states to Joe the Plumber that the reason that he wants that specific tax plan is because he likes wealth redistribution AND THIS TAX PLAN WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT, that perhaps redistribution of wealth through his tax plan IS HIS GOAL?
He was using the 'wealth redistribution' argument as the basis to defend his tax plan, for godsake. What else could he have possibly meant other that "I want wealth redistribution and this tax plan is how I'm going to get it"?
It was his stated goal, to be accomplished... by his own words... with his tax plan.
Wrong as usual, excon... and looking more and more foolish by trying to deny it.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Firemen and VA doctors are paid BY TAXPAYERS.
I'm not paying for some schmuck down the street who is addicted to smack to get the SAME healthcare I'm getting. Screw that.
Once again--who is John Galt?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 AM. |