WWJD?

8/21/2009 7:10:12 PM

1st Amendment, baby!

8/21/2009 7:14:09 PM

^^ I don't know the mind of Jesus, but I'm guessing he'd smite about half of you fuckers.

8/21/2009 7:25:11 PM

Jesus this thread took a turn for the worse . . .



That being said, the military appropriations process was mentioned in another thread and we all know what sort of abomination that is. Why does anyone think that the medical appropriations process would be any different under a single payer plan (which is the eventual goal of a sizeable number of the health care reform crowd)?

Also, why shouldn't health care be for profit? Profit is simply an indication of effective utilization of scarce resources. Government agencies lack any sound means for measuring effectiveness or correcting for inefficiencies. There is a reason that government programs are perpetually over-budget and under-performing.

8/21/2009 7:33:02 PM

Quote :

"nope. yes, I should have said natural selection, but it is used by evolution. let's argue semantics and show pictures of Hitler, though."

You've taken the position that we should deny healthcare to the children of poor parents.

I don't think anyone needs to resort to semantics to argue against that.

8/21/2009 7:33:16 PM

Michael Leavitt, former secretary of Health and Human Services:

Quote :

"Responding to a building wave of opposition to the "public option," the Obama administration is now signaling that it may dress up government health care in yet another set of clothes. This time, it will be called a health insurance "co-op." Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) is floating the idea, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has offered his initial support, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has listed three conditions it needs to meet. Mr. Schumer's conditions are a national structure, federal financing, and a ban on federal appointees who have ties to the insurance industry. This "co-op" would be federally controlled, federally funded, and federally staffed. Expressing his opposition to smaller organizations and his demand for a national "co-op," Mr. Schumer says, "It has to have clout; it has to be large." He adds, "There would at least be one national model that could go all over the country," which would require "a large infusion of federal dollars." I'm quite familiar with real co-ops. As a teenager, I filled my family's tractor with fuel purchased at a farmer's co-op, which was organized by local people to solve a common problem. My family got its electricity from a rural electric co-op. I was later a director of an "insurance reciprocal," a form of a co-op. Co-ops are a part of American culture: people uniting to solve common problems. What the Democrats are proposing bears little resemblance to this. The Democrats are insisting that their version of a "co-op" wouldn't be government-run health care, but I ran Medicare and Medicaid as secretary of Health and Human Services, and I know this isn't true. When Washington provides the money, names the directors and ultimately pays the bills, government controls health care. Lobbyists will lobby, Congress will respond, and bureaucrats will decide who gets care, what drugs are prescribed, what procedures are covered, and how much money providers can charge. This is true for Medicare, it's true for Medicaid, and it would be true of Mr. Conrad's "co-ops." Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is from Iowa farm country. He knows co-ops, and hopefully he also knows a plan for a government takeover when he sees it. He's said he's against a "public option," no matter what it's called. Yet Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, describing what he wants out of "co-op" legislation, spoke plainly, as reported by Politico earlier this summer, when he said, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objective of the public option." "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362450890157932.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

8/21/2009 7:34:59 PM

Quote :

"You've taken the position that we should deny healthcare to the children of poor parents. I don't think anyone needs to resort to semantics to argue against that."

I've done no such thing. But, nice try, though

8/21/2009 7:36:05 PM

A Tanzarian:

Quote :

"Aren't you punishing the children (by witholding their healthcare) for something the parents did?"

aaronburro:

Quote :

"and, the children shouldn't be punished? If a parent doesn't give a shit about his kid, then why should I? Why should we perpetuate the passing along of clearly defective genes. Maybe we should let evolution do its job. oh wait, evolution can only be used to knock on God, not liberal policies. eek!"

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 7:40 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2009 7:40:08 PM

I'm not the one withholding healthcare. The irresponsible parent is the one doing so. Nice try, though

8/21/2009 7:43:56 PM

Should the Medicaid program be terminated?

8/21/2009 7:53:09 PM

possibly. but doing so still wouldn't be "withholding healthcare." That would only occur if we said "you can't have healthcare, even if you pay for it."

8/21/2009 8:01:39 PM

so we should withhold medical treatment from children who are not cared for properly by their parents?

ok

8/21/2009 8:15:44 PM

No, we should possibly end a program that exists solely to help underpriviledged people.

We don't want the "passing along of clearly defective genes."

Poor people and their poor genes.

8/21/2009 8:21:09 PM

my middle class genes are awesome and should be passed on to my boring middle class kids

and my collection of Big Johnson shirts.

8/21/2009 8:24:23 PM

irregardless.

So we should tell everyone. Don't worry about pumping out as many babies as you'd like. We will just get some rich people to pay for them. As long as we give them health care, access to college, and a positive environment; than they'll come out ok!!

A large part of that "environment" is the parents. If they fail out holding a job, Being a responsible member of society, etc than in all likelihood their kids will inherit the same set of traits.

If the case if like you describe it where environment is key. Why then do we not start confiscating children of welfare recipients since we let them cultivate in a civilly toxic environment where they are destined to repeat the ways of their parents.

8/21/2009 9:00:36 PM

holy fuck

could anyone read and comprehend a single goddamn thing he just wrote?

8/21/2009 9:04:24 PM

Jesus, that is one massive grammatical train-wreck. Seriously HUR needs to clean up his grammar and his concept of basic sentence structure before he starts ranting on about the ignorance of other Americans.

8/21/2009 9:27:32 PM

8/21/2009 9:46:10 PM

if we don't have poor unwanted babies who is going to work for all of the companies the rich people own.


seriously

8/21/2009 9:47:23 PM

not serious

8/21/2009 10:11:46 PM

mexicans?

8/21/2009 10:24:19 PM

I'm trying to keep this as 'clean' as I can and the name calling out.....Arguing about what evolution is or isn't or what eugenics is or isn't, isn't important in THIS conversation. I'd call this TSB/internetz/flaming/troll bullshit, except that I think it's this exact thing that I believe is the reason why we as a country, are in the healthcare fight. At the heart of this thing is that we (politicians > the media > the public) are arguing over something that doesn't exist. The right says, 'There's a death panel'....the left says, 'No there's not'....the right says, 'yes there yes, it basically says it here' the left says, 'it basically says the opposite'....etc....etc The truth is that the people who wrote this shit did what they could to make this thing as vague as possible/complicated as possible. This in and of itself is a gigantic problem for everyone, even if we all agreed that these things were kosher....why? Because think about the amount of paperwork and appeals and complaints and time that's going to undoubtedly accompany this. John Smith is going to claim that he does indeed qualify for a treatment because he fulfills the requirement and the gov't is going to say that he doesn't because that requirement actually means something else. Think about the fights that go on with health insurures now...and their policies aren't 1200 pages long....

8/21/2009 11:10:26 PM

Quote :

"Five-year relative survival (%), age-standardised to the ICSS weights1, with 95% confidence intervals, adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1990-94 and followed up to 31 December 1999: country"

Published online in Lancet Oncology 17 July 2008

8/21/2009 11:10:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm trying to keep this as 'clean' as I can and the name calling out.....Arguing about what evolution is or isn't or what eugenics is or isn't, isn't important in THIS conversation. I'd call this TSB/internetz/flaming/troll bullshit, except that I think it's this exact thing that I believe is the reason why we as a country, are in the healthcare fight. At the heart of this thing is that we (politicians > the media > the public) are arguing over something that doesn't exist. The right says, 'There's a death panel'....the left says, 'No there's not'....the right says, 'yes there yes, it basically says it here' the left says, 'it basically says the opposite'....etc....etc The truth is that the people who wrote this shit did what they could to make this thing as vague as possible/complicated as possible. This in and of itself is a gigantic problem for everyone, even if we all agreed that these things were kosher....why? Because think about the amount of paperwork and appeals and complaints and time that's going to undoubtedly accompany this. John Smith is going to claim that he does indeed qualify for a treatment because he fulfills the requirement and the gov't is going to say that he doesn't because that requirement actually means something else. Think about the fights that go on with health insurures now...and their policies aren't 1200 pages long...."

wtf?

are you drunk?

8/21/2009 11:16:03 PM

Quote :

"wtf? are you drunk?"

Nope. If you do not understand something, please ask for clarification of this and I will happily do it.

8/21/2009 11:22:57 PM

yeah, if you could clarify pretty much all of it, that'd be terrific.

8/21/2009 11:23:34 PM

Sure. No problem.

Quote :

"I'm trying to keep this as 'clean' as I can and the name calling out....."

I am trying to have a healthy discussion about something.

Quote :

"Arguing about what evolution is or isn't or what eugenics is or isn't, isn't important in THIS conversation."

I asked a specific question on the previous page which was answered by a number of people but quickly evolved into an argument about the difference in definitions between the word 'evolution' and 'eugenics', neither of which was used or implied in my questions, so for the purposes of THIS conversation I deem that particular argument to be of no value.

Quote :

"I'd call this TSB/internetz/flaming/troll bullshit, except that I think it's this exact thing that I believe is the reason why we as a country, are in the healthcare fight. At the heart of this thing is that we (politicians > the media > the public) are arguing over something that doesn't exist. "

Name calling (i.e."you're just a fucking idiot" or "get an education your dumb ass" are typical responses that a thread in TSB (or any internet thread on any site) may get a lot of the time, but such name calling usually is much quieter when this is a debate IRL with the majority of the public except in this healthcare debate that is currently going on. I find this to be rare.

Quote :

"The right says, 'There's a death panel'....the left says, 'No there's not'....the right says, 'yes there yes, it basically says it here' the left says, 'it basically says the opposite'....etc....etc"

"Joe" says "a=b+c"
"Jane" says "a=b+d"
"Joe" says "well 'd' is just another of saying 'c'"
"Jane says "no, 'd' is actually the exact opposite of 'c'"
and this continues on with no resolve.

Quote :

"The truth is that the people who wrote this shit did what they could to make this thing as vague as possible/complicated as possible. This in and of itself is a gigantic problem for everyone, even if we all agreed that these things were kosher....why?"

There are 1100 pages of 'a=b+c or d or e or f' but only if 'a=3, not if a=4' in HR 3200 (this is the healthcare bill) and the members of congress themselves, the one's who were supposed to author the HR 3200, don't even know what's in there because they didn't write it; A group of highly trained lawyers who are paid very large sums of money to be able to both write and decipher pages and pages of seemingly mundane sentences are the ones who did. So the only people who can actually debate or even know what is or isn't in the bill, is that small group of lawyers, none of which have been involved in any of the debates that are taking place both within the gov't and in the media. So that is a huge problem right there, but just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that everyone, everywhere agrees that 'a=b+c or d or e or f' but only if 'a=3'.

Quote :

"Because think about the amount of paperwork and appeals and complaints and time that's going to undoubtedly accompany this. John Smith is going to claim that he does indeed qualify for a treatment because he fulfills the requirement and the gov't is going to say that he doesn't because that requirement actually means something else."

There will be a large amount of paperwork as there almost always is with anything gov't related. There is actually an entire 'season' named for time that is needed to fill and figure out a person's taxes. And those are strictly money matters. Now we are talking about actual life/death matters. So if "Joe" or "Jane" goes into the hospital believing that they qualify for 'a' because they have 'b+c' and are then told that in their case the 'a' doesn't equal 3 so they don't qualify for anything, both "Joe" and "Jane" are going to fight to get what they believe is rightfully theirs. And this fight will take a lot of time and money because arguing with any large entity, the U.S. gov't being the biggest one in this country. Add into this that many things will be a time sensitive issue which means that the gov't will have to spend more money on hiring more people to sort out more paperwork and settle more appeals etc.....

Quote :

"Think about the fights that go on with health insurers now...and their policies aren't 1200 pages long...."

A current complaint made by people and one of the reasons why it has been said there needs to be health care reform is so that the insurance companies don't deny someone of something by claiming there was a little footnote or exception buried somewhere in their policy. Those policies issued by those current insurance companies are no where near 1200 pages long...so by increasing the number of pages in a policy (to 1200) any complaints regarding those buried items will only go up, not down...which makes the whole initial claim of there needing to be 'reform' to clean up the process, that much more messy.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 12:43 AM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 12:42:33 AM

f + a + c + e + p + a + l + m

8/22/2009 1:12:40 AM

^please note the above post was specifically for jwb PER REQUEST. feel free to ignore that post and see the original one a few posts up.

8/22/2009 1:26:30 AM

OK...a big block of text is too much for you.....so I've un'blocked' it for you. If this doesn't help, and since you stated that you couldn't understand ANYTHING, I'm going to assume that you actually have no fucking clue about anything related to this thread.

I'm trying to keep this as 'clean' as I can and the name calling out.....

Arguing about what evolution is or isn't or what eugenics is or isn't, isn't important in THIS conversation. I'd call this TSB/internetz/flaming/troll bullshit, except that I think it's this exact thing that I believe is the reason why we as a country, are in the healthcare fight.

At the heart of this thing is that we (politicians > the media > the public) are arguing over something that doesn't exist. The right says, 'There's a death panel'....the left says, 'No there's not'....the right says, 'yes there yes, it basically says it here' the left says, 'it basically says the opposite'....etc....etc The truth is that the people who wrote this shit did what they could to make this thing as vague as possible/complicated as possible.

This in and of itself is a gigantic problem for everyone, even if we all agreed that these things were kosher....why? Because think about the amount of paperwork and appeals and complaints and time that's going to undoubtedly accompany this. John Smith is going to claim that he does indeed qualify for a treatment because he fulfills the requirement and the gov't is going to say that he doesn't because that requirement actually means something else.

Think about the fights that go on with health insurures now...and their policies aren't 1200 pages long....

8/22/2009 2:26:35 AM

Quote :

"The truth is that the people who wrote this shit did what they could to make this thing as vague as possible/complicated as possible."

Hardly. The Office of Legislative Council writes the bills:

Quote :

"The Office is strictly nonpartisan and refrains from formulating policy. Legislative drafters strive to turn every request into clear, concise, and legally effective legislative language."

http://slc.senate.gov/


The "death panels" section is only difficult to interpret if you're retarded.

8/22/2009 9:18:52 AM

So are you saying that this bill is simple to comprehend as well as clear and concise? The members of congress who are the technical authors of this bill, freely admit that they haven't even read the thing, let alone understand it.

I never said anything about death panels and my understanding or not understanding of it. I'm well aware that there is no such thing called an actual 'death panel'. I understand that this term was created by conservative members of congress and/or media to illicit a specific reaction, in this case, fear. Much like there is no actual 'car czar' but using such a word immediately gives the idea of such a person, a negative one. I get how the media and politicians work....shit goes BOTH WAYS.

But no one TRYING to win approval by the majority of people is going to word it in a way that sounds even a little bit negative because then it wouldn't pass...so you dance around it, put fancy terms in it, make it so complicated to decipher that in the end, you just ignore the entire message. And congress THEMSELVES did just that...so yes, they made this bill as vague as possible on purpose.

Forget death panels, how about 'can I keep my insurance plan that I have now, if I like it?' Obama says 'YES!' so why not then just put one line in the bill that says just that? Because the answer is only 'YES' if you meet the requirements of 50 other questions. The question could be answered by 'NO', unless you meet the requirements of 50 other questions but this has a negative connotation to it so no one trying to sell you on it is going to say that.

8/22/2009 2:38:04 PM

Is it too long, too complicated, or too vague?

Those words don't all mean the same thing you know...

If you are even vaguely familiar with how laws are normally written, there is nothing unusual about the wordings of this bill. Just the fact that you are latching on to the myth that it's written to be unusually deceiving shows how blinded you have become by right-wing media sources.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 2:53:42 PM

Quote :

"^^ I don't know the mind of Jesus, but I'm guessing he'd smite about half of you fuckers."

Haha clearly you don't know it.

8/22/2009 3:13:44 PM

Quote :

"Is it too long, too complicated, or too vague? Those words don't all mean the same thing you know... "

Doesn't mean the bill can't be all 3.

Quote :

"If you are even vaguely familiar with how laws are normally written, there is nothing unusual about the wordings of this bill."

And that's half the problem people have. The Constitution, the document which is the complete foundation of this country is easier to read, more concise and more specific than any of the bills being passed today by our law makers, and none of our law makers are founding a whole country. And even despite that, we have never ending battles over just what the constitution allows the government to do.

Given that, and the history of our government to take a mile when given an inch, is it any wonder that some people are afraid that when the government has a bill that mandates end of life discussions every 5 years, that must include the government approved end of life options, and where funding for such discussions is tied to doctors submitting reports about the options they discuss, that such laws without any specific wording to the contrary may some day be turned into ways where the government can start pressuring old people to just go and die instead of being a burden?

I don't think you're going to see death squads a la Logan's Run, but if you don't think there is potential there for abuse, you clearly haven't been paying attention to american history.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 3:23 PM. Reason : ljl]

8/22/2009 3:20:19 PM

Quote :

"The Constitution, the document which is the complete foundation of this country is easier to read, more concise and more specific than any of the bills being passed today by our law makers,"

Haha, are you kidding? To this day, people debate what the meaning of parts of the constitution are. The constitution is no where near as clear as you're making it out to be. The founding fathers even established an entire branch of the gov. whose job it is to interpret what the constitution actually means.

Quote :

"Given that, and the history of our government to take a mile when given an inch, is it any wonder that some people are afraid that when the government has a bill that mandates end of life discussions every 5 years, that must include the government approved end of life options, and where funding for such discussions is tied to doctors submitting reports about the options they discuss, that such laws without any specific wording to the contrary may some day be turned into ways where the government can start pressuring old people to just go and die instead of being a burden? I don't think you're going to see death squads a la Logan's Run, but if you don't think there is potential there for abuse, you clearly haven't been paying attention to american history. "

What aspect of modern american history makes you think the gov. would remotely come close to ordering old people to die? Insurance companies have layers of policies that are designed to deter old people from getting health care, and it is the government that had to step in and bolster care for the elderly.

You could choose this doomsday interpretation of the law by taking bizarre leaps of logic, but you'd just look foolish. Doctors already have to submit reports about procedures to insurance companies, this is not different than anything now. And I don't think the bill ever mandated the discussions, only that they would be covered up to a certain amount. And this has been removed from the plan anyway, so it's a moot point.

Claiming that the gov. was setting the framework to form death panels is as nutty as claiming that Bush wanted to declare marshall law and seize a third term. You could certainly twist things to interpret his actions to be going in this direction, but it doesn't make you seem sane really.

8/22/2009 3:35:22 PM

All three.

I haven't 'latched' on to anything, and I like how you assume that because I don't agree with this bill, I must be blinded by right-wing media sources. Did I not say that the whole 'death panel' thing was a right-wing term made up to scare everyone?

There may be nothing unusual about how the bill is worded but when the government, who almost always fucks things up, wants to change how I live my life in a very large way, then wording matters. If it didn't then there wouldn't be much reason for lawyers and judges to ever go to court since you seem to believe that the wording is typical and the only real reason for lawyers would be to explain to clients, what the law means to their situation.

I don't get this though:

Republicans are described as being the socially and fiscally conservative ones who think they should have a say in what you do in your privates lives and thinks it's their duty to keep people to a set of moral standards while letting capitalism be the driving force behind the direction the country moves in.

Democrats are described has believing that what you do behind closed doors is your business and shouldn't be policed by the government and that the government is better qualified to handle your money in an effort to be socially responsible...

yet this bill, if passed, is going to intrude on our private lives more than a Republican could ever hope for.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 3:42:21 PM

Quote :

"There may be nothing unusual about how the bill is worded but when the government, who almost always fucks things up,"

Wow, so you hate the government now too? How unpatriotic. Thousands of soldiers have died over the past years to defend the gov. you are blithely dismissing. The US, despite our flaws, is still one of the best countries to live in. You have no clue what it means for a gov to "fuck things up" until you actually live in a country where the gov. actually does suck really badly. Spend a month in Nigeria to get a perspective on bad government. Our gov. is obviously not perfect, but it definitely does a LOT of things right. Saying that we "almost always" do things wrong is completely ridiculous.

Quote :

"...wants to change how I live my life in a very large way, then wording matters."

The health care bill will in no way cause you to change the way you live your life "in a very large way." This is propaganda you have somehow bought in to.

Quote :

"yet this bill, if passed, is going to intrude on our private lives more than a Republican could ever hope for. "

Also patently untrue. Assuming the public option doesn't make it through, what will change for you? Practically nothing. If you have friends who have been denied coverage because of "past conditions" they can now get healthcare. How terrible, right? Other than that, nothing will change in your daily life. The gov. will not be "intruding" on what you are doing.

Assuming the public option DOES pass, then worst case scenario you change insurance companies. OMFG how TERRIBLE!!!!!

The healthcare bill is so retardedly mild, i personally am amazed people are so angry about it. It gives the gov. FAR, FAR less power than the Patriot Act and related legislation did.

8/22/2009 3:55:24 PM

Quote :

"Wow, so you hate the government now too? How unpatriotic. Thousands of soldiers have died over the past years to defend the gov. you are blithely dismissing."

Quote :

"Always love your country but never trust your government."

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 4:07:12 PM

^ true...

8/22/2009 4:11:08 PM

Apologies for not clarifying what I meant about gov't involvement.....I meant in terms of domestic issues, and more specifically anything that involves money. I take the blame for not being more clear.

As for the health care bill changing our lives in a large way.....you couldn't be more wrong. Does the bill say anything about specific issues? No. But until this point, the more money I earn, the more money I can afford to spend on health insurance. Which means among other things that I get to decide when I need to go to the doctor, or how important it might be for to have a hip replacement when I'm older as opposed to getting a cane.

It means that if I decide to have 18 kids, I can afford to give them all the benefits that I have even though it will mean I'll have a lot less money to buy fancy electronics with and if I decide to have no kids, I can buy a whole bunch of really expensive stuff most of which I don't need. I won't get that choice if the bill passes.

And when my unemployed neighbors have 18 kids that I wave to every day when I leave for work, get to have the same benefits I do even though they don't contribute to the fund and use 18x more of it than I do....that changes the way I live my life.

It's not a secret that democrats believe that everyone should be more concerned about the general welfare of everyone, rather than individually and that this is what will move our nation forward in a positive direction... and it's no secret that republicans believe that people should be more concerned about making their own way because it's that desire which drives people to create great things for everyone which will move our nation forward in a positive way. Two different ways of thinking and while there may be no right or wrong answer...the democrats beliefs are in place in many countries around the world, some more strict than others but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States doesn't lead the world in advances...medical, technological, and otherwise. There's a reason for that.

And just FYI, I have lived in countries that suck badly. As a matter of fact I was born in one, South Africa. There's a reason why people (my family included) wanted to get the fuck out of there as soon as they could. Our country is a great country and that's why it should be left that way. This country was founded upon the basic idea of personal freedom while keeping it's citizens safe. Even as it is now, you have little say in what happens to a large portion of the money that you earn but it's accepted because money is needed to maintain our safety...

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 4:37:44 PM

Quote :

"‘SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS. 29 ‘(a) In General- Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary, the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio. Such methodology shall be set at the highest level medical loss ratio possible that is designed to ensure adequate participation by issuers, competition in the health insurance market, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services."

I may be reading this wrong (I'm not a lawyer) but, I do not want the federal government regulating how much money any company makes, be it an insurance company, oil company, or retail store.




^

Quote :

"And when my unemployed neighbors have 18 kids that I wave to every day when I leave for work, get to have the same benefits I do even though they don't contribute to the fund and use 18x more of it than I do....that changes the way I live my life."

At that point, there is nothing left to do but shrug.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 4:39:23 PM

^why not?

8/22/2009 4:48:14 PM

Quote :

"As for the health care bill changing our lives in a large way.....you couldn't be more wrong. Does the bill say anything about specific issues? No. But until this point, the more money I earn, the more money I can afford to spend on health insurance. Which means among other things that I get to decide when I need to go to the doctor, or how important it might be for to have a hip replacement when I'm older as opposed to getting a cane. It means that if I decide to have 18 kids, I can afford to give them all the benefits that I have even though it will mean I'll have a lot less money to buy fancy electronics with and if I decide to have no kids, I can buy a whole bunch of really expensive stuff most of which I don't need. I won't get that choice if the bill passes. "

100% untrue. The health reform bill does not, and never has, set an upper limit on your health options.

Quote :

" Two different ways of thinking and while there may be no right or wrong answer...the democrats beliefs are in place in many countries around the world, some more strict than others but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States doesn't lead the world in advances...medical, technological, and otherwise. There's a reason for that."

The US leads the way because our strong central gov. enables people to live comfortably with relatively safe cities, a fairly good road system, a strong legal system, and well funded academic and gov. research programs. All "democratic ways of thinking" in terms of how to move society forward. Throughout history, it's practically always the most comfortable civilizations that spawn the great thinkers. If people are too busy subsistence farming or grinding away at a 9-5, they don't have time to sit around and ponder what it would be like to ride on a photon.

8/22/2009 4:48:21 PM

^^seriously? You don't have a problem telling a company how much money it can make?

To go more extreme, would you have a problem if the government initiated a maximum wage?

8/22/2009 4:52:14 PM

I just tried to read mytwocents's posts, and I literally can't. I get two sentences in, and my eyes just stop working.

It may be the rambling wall of text. It may be her elementary understanding of politics. Possibly the combination thereof? I can't be sure.

Am I alone, here?



[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM. Reason : no offnse, I guess-- but seriously.]

8/22/2009 5:02:02 PM

maximum wage would weed out alot of douches that's for sure.


however other than that its a pretty horrible idea.

8/22/2009 5:04:09 PM

The gov. practically had a maximum wage when the marginal tax rate was 90% through the late 60s (and ~70% afterwards).

And in the meanwhile, we developed a space program that put a man on the moon, the first computers were developed, and the microprocessor was developed.

... all put in place by the people who defeated the N**is.

[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 5:07:43 PM

You forgot off shore tax shelters on that list of accomplishments

But, at least now we know why we don't have flying cars.



[Edited on August 22, 2009 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2009 5:11:29 PM

Quote :

"seriously? You don't have a problem telling a company how much money it can make?"

If that company is making its money from non-preventable diseases and injuries from freak accidents, then no, I have no problem telling them how much they can make.

8/22/2009 5:14:05 PM