Quote :

"I never said they can't drop you. What I meant to say was that as it stands now, even after being diagnosed while covered, they can drop your coverage. If you get into a car wreck, sure, you can be dropped. But they're still going to pay the bills."

wouldn't that be why we were talking about them continuing to pay the bills, even if they dropped you? Moreover, you originally said they can drop anyone now, suggesting that that makes it unlike insurance. Stop being obtuse.

Quote :

"I've supported it over and over again."

No you haven't. You have NEVER shown that they will charge sick people less. You've made claims, but I and others have trashed those claims. You drew a picture. I trashed your stupid picture. You have failed to explain why an insurance company would charge one customer less than another based solely on him having cost the insurance money in the past.

Quote :

"So, you're telling me that insurance companies are going to try to minimize HOW MUCH money they lose, even if it means a reduction in rates to keep a sick person on as a customer? It sounds to me that they're even MORE motivated to keep a sick person, as they're paying for their expenses."

No, because, as I said, 10 bux from me is the same as 10 bux from you.

Quote :

"It's what I've been saying."

No, it's not. Yes, you have said it, but it is NOT what you were talking about when you responded to the quote of mine. Stop going in fucking circles. It's a trolling maneuver to dodge between two arguments and attribute quotes to things they were never intended to apply to.

Quote :

"I'm talking about the entire health care system. I said health care, I meant health care. Not health insurance."

That's funny, cause we are talking about insurance, and everything in my quotes has referred to insurance, as has yours. It's a convenient time to change your mind, don't you think?

Quote :

"I'm simply asking you why are you throwing out the "Constitution flag" when you ignore other unconstitutional laws?"

and that's a LOGICAL FALLACY. rationalize it all you want. It's still a logical fallacy. You are trying to divert AWAY from the topic of conversation.

Quote :

"The entire purpose of using "Tu Quoque" and "two wrongs make a right" fallacy is to try to discredit someone's point. It's a diversionary tactic."

So, you admit to using them. THEY ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES!!! as in, they are NOT valid forms of argument or logic. Thus, I have no need to address what you are talking about, as they are entirely illogical.

1/7/2010 10:26:53 PM

Quote :

"wouldn't that be why we were talking about them continuing to pay the bills, even if they dropped you?"

IE, 1337's plan, which I said I didn't like.

Quote :

"Moreover, you originally said they can drop anyone now, suggesting that that makes it unlike insurance."

I did say that and they can do it. You know it and I know it.

Quote :

"Stop being obtuse."

Quote :

"You have failed to explain why an insurance company would charge one customer less than another based solely on him having cost the insurance money in the past."

Haven't I said, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again that INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE PAYING FOR A SICK PERSON'S TREATMENT WILL GIVE THEM LOWER RATES TO KEEP THEM ON. You have yet to disprove it.

Disprove it, and you might change my mind. If you don't disprove my claim, then shut the fuck up.

You keep going round the fuck round about how it's going to affect all the companies, yet you FAIL to explain how that disproves what I'm saying.

Quote :

"No, because, as I said, 10 bux from me is the same as 10 bux from you."

And? What the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying? NOTHING!

If an insurance company is paying out 16,000 dollars a month for treatment and I'm no longer covered under them, then what?

You're out $192,000 a year. Yes? NOW, if I'm paying $10,000 a year for coverage to you, then you're only out $182,000 a year. Right? Is that $10,000 small in comparison to the loss? YES! But losing $182,000 a year to me is better than $192,000 a year.

Now I change fucking jobs where my premium of $10,000 is the same. You're now out $192,000. Yes? So why would you not give me a discount to help cut your losses? Why would you not lower my premium to $7,000 a year? $185,000 loss is better than $192,000, is it not?

What the fuck am I missing. Please, point it out!

Quote :

"No, it's not. Yes, you have said it, but it is NOT what you were talking about when you responded to the quote of mine. Stop going in fucking circles. It's a trolling maneuver to dodge between two arguments and attribute quotes to things they were never intended to apply to."

You said that I can't "explain why someone should not not be insured when they fail to get insurance."

So I gave my reasoning. You didn't like it, so instead, you'd rather cop out. It's why I think that the consequence for going uninsured is too severe.

Quote :

"That's funny, cause we are talking about insurance, and everything in my quotes has referred to insurance, as has yours. It's a convenient time to change your mind, don't you think? "

Are you fucking sure that EVERYTHING that you've quoted has had insurance in it? Knock the horse shit off. You got called out for fucking up what you had said:

Quote :

"The health care system shouldn't be setup to screw people over."

Where do you see the word insurance IN THE FUCKING QUOTE THAT YOU REFERRED TO?

Quote :

"and that's a LOGICAL FALLACY. rationalize it all you want. It's still a logical fallacy. You are trying to divert AWAY from the topic of conversation."

No, that's not A LOGICAL FALLACY. What I do see is you copping out like a little bitch.

The GOP and a few people here were throwing the constitutional argument.

If you think that it's such a logical fallacy, then why don't you EXPLAIN why it is. Just because you keep claiming that it is a logical fallacy, doesn't make it is. So either explain why it is a logical fallacy, or respond to my assertion.

Quote :

"So, you admit to using them."

I admit that a few times in the past where you called me out on it, you were correct. But that why I went through the length of explaining why my assertion that you cherry pick from the Constitution is NOT a logic fallacy. I've made it quite clear that you and other people cherry pick from it.

Knock the cop out off, or I'll start doing it.


[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:15 PM. Reason : Clarity]

1/7/2010 11:13:50 PM

Quote :

"IE, 1337's plan, which I said I didn't like."

WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. stop being a troll.

Quote :

"I did say that and they can do it. You know it and I know it."

how is the fact that a plan can drop you unlike insurance? Please, don't say it's cause they can get off without paying, cause I've already been down that alley. Jesus. Can you car-insurance company never drop you?

Quote :

"INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE PAYING FOR A SICK PERSON'S TREATMENT WILL GIVE THEM LOWER RATES TO KEEP THEM ON. You have yet to disprove it."

Yes, you've said it a million times, and I have proven that it will not happen. You just won't address my points that I made, troll.

Quote :

"And? What the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying? NOTHING!"

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. You are saying they have more incentive to keep the sick person, BUT THEY DON'T. keeping the sick person makes them no more money, it doesn't reduce the loss any, either. The sick person is entirely the same as any other person. Thus, my 10 bux is the same as your 10 bux. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more true, dude.

Quote :

"You said that I can't "explain why someone should not not be insured when they fail to get insurance.""

Yes, in regards to THEM NOT HAVING THEIR HOSPITAL BILLS PAID. It was CLEAR that was what I was talking about. Nowhere in the context of that was I talking about future ability to get insurance.

Quote :

"Are you fucking sure that EVERYTHING that you've quoted has had insurance in it?"

Absolutely not. You are flipping back and forth, which you have been called out on before. I am PLAINLY talking about insurance only. That you can't separate the two is NOT my problem. It also doesn't give you a free pass to take a cop-out, either.

Quote :

"No, that's not A LOGICAL FALLACY."

YES IT FUCKING IS!!! You've even said as much!
Look:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html

IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

Quote :

"But that why I went through the length of explaining why my assertion that you cherry pick from the Constitution is NOT a logic fallacy. I've made it quite clear that you and other people cherry pick from it."

You derived an argument based on a logical fallacy. I don't have to go on to defend the shit you come up with after the fallacy, because it based on a fallacy. As in, by definition, anything that is based on that fallacy is illogical. THAT'S WHY I DON'T RESPOND TO IT.

1/7/2010 11:46:24 PM

Quote :

"how is the fact that a plan can drop you unlike insurance?"

This:

Quote :

"Please, don't say it's cause they can get off without paying, cause I've already been down that alley"

And yeah, we have been down that alley with 1337's plan, which I have repeatedly said that I do not like his plan for reasons already explained.

Quote :

"Yes, you've said it a million times, and I have proven that it will not happen. You just won't address my points that I made, troll."

No, you haven't proven that it won't happen. If you're so damn sure of it, how about you reiterate it for me, troll?

Quote :

"It has EVERYTHING to do with it."

No. It doesn't. You can keep saying it, but it really has nothing to do with my point.

Quote :

"keeping the sick person makes them no more money, it doesn't reduce the loss any, either."

You keep saying that a sick person doesn't reduce the loss, BUT IT DOES! I've mathematically shown it to you. If you're so damn sure that it doesn't reduce the insurance company's loss, then explain why have you been avoiding your explanation of why it doesn't?

Quote :

"The sick person is entirely the same as any other person."

No. They're not. A healthy person isn't a loss, a sick person is. How the fuck have you graduated college and not realize this? I could find a homeless schizophrenic who would be able to make realize that a sick person isn't the same as a healthy person in the eyes of an insurance company.

So yes, your 10 bux is the same as my 10 bux. But the statement isn't relevant to the

Quote :

"Yes, in regards to THEM NOT HAVING THEIR HOSPITAL BILLS PAID. It was CLEAR that was what I was talking about."

AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

Quote :

"They should be allowed to get insurance so that they can pay their medical expenses so that they won't die or be ruined financially"

You just don't like that answer. Tough shit. Knock the cop out off.

Quote :

"Absolutely not. You are flipping back and forth, which you have been called out on before. I am PLAINLY talking about insurance only."

I am not flipping back and forth. I was CLEARLY talking about how after the "reform," THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM won't be changed. It was clearly a side comment talking directly about the current "reform's" lack of actual reform in the health care system.

Quote :

"YES IT FUCKING IS!!! You've even said as much!"

AND AGAIN! I'M NOT DOING THAT [B]NOW[/B]. Jesus fucking christ you are a troll. It's very obvious that you are too dumb to understand what I'm saying, as evidenced by your flip flopping on the type of "logical fallacy" that you accuse me off. You don't even have the stones to point out where I'm asserting such fallacy.

I'm not doing the following:

Quote :

"Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out."

I'm simply wondering why you're not complaining about education, food and drug laws! That's it. There's nothing more to it.

Quote :

"You derived an argument based on a logical fallacy."

Please explain to me what argument that I'm trying to make?

Are you trying to tell me that my argument is:

Since we allow education, drug and food laws which are unconstitutional, that therefore we should allow the proposed penalty for the uninsured.

Is that what my argument is? I did try to make that argument, and yes, you called me out on it. I have since rescinded that argument.

Because I could have sworn that my argument was this:

Since education, drug and food laws are for the good of the people and to me, the proposed penalty for being uninsured is for the good of the people, that I'm OK with overlooking a minor constitutionality conflict.

Is there a logical fallacy in that? If so, please EXPLAIN to me what it is.

1/8/2010 12:30:51 AM

Quote :

"No, you haven't proven that it won't happen. If you're so damn sure of it, how about you reiterate it for me, troll?"

How about YOU FUCKING READ IT. But hey, I'll oblige you. The companies have no more of an incentive to compete for a sick person than they do for a healthy person. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I HAVE SAID THIS.

Quote :

"You keep saying that a sick person doesn't reduce the loss, BUT IT DOES! I've mathematically shown it to you."

No, it doesn't. How is their 10 bux different from my 10 bux? IT ISN'T.

Quote :

"A healthy person isn't a loss, a sick person is."

The loss is there whether the sick person is there or not. DURRRRRRRRRRRRR. Even you have said so.

Quote :

"I'm simply wondering why you're not complaining about education, food and drug laws! That's it. There's nothing more to it."

Why bring it up? What's the point? How is that at all relevant to healthcare?

Quote :

"AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT."

It looks like I am going to have to connect the dots for you and SHOW you how you have shifted the subject. I'll do that in the next post, so hold on

1/8/2010 5:10:43 PM

I started out by saying that the punishment for not having insurance was not being insured. As in, not being able to pay for expenses. We started talking about such a thing here:

Quote :

"aaronburro: But, isn't it the natural punishment that arises?"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13604011

You eventually worked your way to this:

Quote :

"merbig: To me, logically, the punishment isn't logical. So they were stupid? They should be forced into bankruptcy, suffer stipend paychecks, possible be denied any loans or funding to cover the cost of the treatment? If a person with HIV/AIDS doesn't get coverage before they get sick, how are they going to get treatment? Yeah, they'll be able to get treatment for a while, until they run out of money. They might be able to get a loan, they might be able to get some funding help. But what happens when they've declared bankruptcy? How will they afford the treatment? To my knowledge, they won't be able to. They will eventually die from it (sooner) without the treatment. You can substitute cancer in for HIV/AIDS or any treatable but life long condition that requires medication or pro-longed treatment."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13607690

I counter with:

Quote :

"aaronburro: When the risk they made was not being able to cover that expense, absolutely!"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13619461
Note we are still talking about the expense incurred with getting sick when you didn't have insurance...

You cop out and say it's an ideological difference.

Quote :

"merbig: And that's where we differ on ideologically. And honestly, I don't see us ever agreeing on that subject. I can call you heartless and you can call me a bleeding-heart. I think in our own minds there's probably nothing that will change."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13620091

I ask you to explain why someone should not face the consequence of their actions. Twice.
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13623187
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13626663

Then, YOU charged me with saying they should not be able to get insurance. YOU brought up the issue of people not being able to get insurance after they get sick. Not me, YOU.

Quote :

"merbig: Well, actually, what you mean to say is, "It's well, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET INSURANCE IF YOU GET SICK." And no, I don't think that's a "normal" consequence."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13629304
So, now we see that you have brought up two issues, all the while accusing me of bringing up the second one via strawman. Let's see where that leads, shall we?

First, I defend against the strawman, calling it as such.
Then I ask:

Quote :

"aaronburro: You are going in circles. You still can't explain why someone should not not be insured when they fail to get insurance."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13629852
Insured, as in, being able to pay the medical bills.

You then go back to "they should be able to get insurance."

Quote :

"merbig: They should be allowed to get insurance so that they can pay their medical expenses so that they won't die or be ruined financially"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#1362997

It is OBVIOUS that you were talking about two separate things. And it is obvious that you flipped between the two when it was convenient. Then you try to say you've been talking about the same thing the entire time. And, it is OBVIOUS that I have always been talking about people being able to pay the medical bills. I've never talked about people not being able to get future insurance. Either you are incredibly fucking stupid, or you are massively trolling.


Now, for your fantastic two wrongs make a right fallacy...

Quote :

"Because I could have sworn that my argument was this: Since education, drug and food laws are for the good of the people and to me, the proposed penalty for being uninsured is for the good of the people, that I'm OK with overlooking a minor constitutionality conflict."

If that's the case, then why did you post this:

Quote :

"Do you support the laws in place on education from the Federal Governemnt? Do you support the laws in place on drug enforcement (to some extent, without getting into the marijuana legalization debate)? Do you support the laws in place on food production and distribution?"

You felt strongly enough about it to post it TWICE.
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13629975
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926&page=49#13630552

Despite me telling you it was fallacious. You continued to post it. And then you finished up with this:

Quote :

"All I'm trying to show is that you're not a champion of the constitution that you, and others, try to make yourself seem to be."

Which finishes up the combo strawman and two wrongs make a right fallacy. Don't fucking try and hide behind that with what you just posted. It's what you were doing, and it's what I called you out on.


But, let me revisit this...

Quote :

"Because I could have sworn that my argument was this: Since education, drug and food laws are for the good of the people and to me, the proposed penalty for being uninsured is for the good of the people, that I'm OK with overlooking a minor constitutionality conflict."

Bullshit. You didn't make that case in your first post of this page. I even quote your last post from the previous page:

Quote :

"merbig: I'm simply asking you why are you throwing out the "Constitution flag" when you ignore other unconstitutional laws?"

You have never ONCE made the argument that you are OK with overlooking the constitutionality of something until just now, when you claimed that is what you've always been saying. You have, however, consistently accused others of cherry-picking, which IS a classic two wrongs fallacy.



Consider yourself fucking PWNT.

1/8/2010 5:46:26 PM

Quote :

"I started out by saying that the punishment for not having insurance was not being insured. As in, not being able to pay for expenses. We started talking about such a thing here:"

Yup. You brought that up.

Quote :

"You eventually worked your way to this:"

I did counter with that.

Quote :

"I counter with:"

That's NOT a counter argument. You argued nothing. You reiterated what you had previously said, but worded differently.

Quote :

"You cop out and say it's an ideological difference."

That's not a cop out. There was nothing to expand upon. We had already discussed the "natural" consequence and how I don't agree with it. As such, there was no point is going around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around. So I ended that.

Quote :

"I ask you to explain why someone should not face the consequence of their actions. Twice."

You asked twice. And I responded with this:

Quote :

"I feel that a person shouldn't be risk losing their life because of something as silly as going without insurance. I don't think that's the "normal" consequence."

You don't like the answer. Tough shit. You're just upset because there's nothing to really counter with, except to call me a bleeding heart.

Quote :

"Then, YOU charged me with saying they should not be able to get insurance. YOU brought up the issue of people not being able to get insurance after they get sick. Not me, YOU."

And. Are you saying that they should be allowed to get insurance if they get sick?

Quote :

"So, now we see that you have brought up two issues, all the while accusing me of bringing up the second one via strawman. Let's see where that leads, shall we?"

There is NO strawman.

I said this:

Quote :

"You're free to sit on your pedestal and shrug your shoulders saying, "Meh, they should have gotten coverage when they had the chance.""

You responded with:

Quote :

"It's dumb that we let people face the consequences of their actions?"

Which lead me to this:

Quote :

"Well, actually, what you mean to say is, "It's well, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET INSURANCE IF YOU GET SICK." And no, I don't think that's a "normal" consequence.""

There is no strawman. It's all based off of WHAT YOU SAID. From what I can tell, YOU ARE saying that a natural consequence of going without insurance is that if you get sick, you can no longer get insurance. Whether it be under the current way the system works or under l337 b4k4's.

It's not a misrepresentation of your position. IT IS YOUR POSITION.

Quote :

"calling it as such."

Call it as such all you want. It doesn't make it true based off of the definition of a strawman. If there is a certain key point that I am missing, please, point it out.

Quote :

"Insured, as in, being able to pay the medical bills."

No, insured as in having an insurance company pay for part of the medical bills. But I guess now I'm getting caught in semantics.

Quote :

"You then go back to "they should be able to get insurance.""

Yup. A response you don't like. You can't explain what makes your "natural" consequence the best consequence. I have proposed tax penalties for people who choose to go uninsured, so high that it would make sense NOT to get insurance.

Quote :

"I've never talked about people not being able to get future insurance."

Really? REALLY? We've BEEN talking about people not being able to get future insurance. I'VE been talking about and YOU'VE been trying to counter it.

I said this:

Quote :

"If a person with HIV/AIDS doesn't get coverage before they get sick, how are they going to get treatment? Yeah, they'll be able to get treatment for a while, until they run out of money. They might be able to get a loan, they might be able to get some funding help. But what happens when they've declared bankruptcy? How will they afford the treatment? To my knowledge, they won't be able to. They will eventually die from it (sooner) without the treatment. You can substitute cancer in for HIV/AIDS or any treatable but life long condition that requires medication or pro-longed treatment."

You responded with:

Quote :

"Not my problem. Should have purchased insurance when they could have. Then there is no problem."

Are you now telling me that you've NEVER talked about people not being able to get future insurance?

Quote :

"Now, for your fantastic two wrongs make a right fallacy..."

Uhhh. Did you look at the definition of the fallacy you're claiming I'm committing:

Quote :

"Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out"

Quote :

"If that's the case, then why did you post this:"

Why not? i told you why:

Quote :

"All I'm trying to show is that you're not a champion of the constitution that you, and others, try to make yourself seem to be."

Quote :

"Bullshit. You didn't make that case in your first post of this page. I even quote your last post from the previous page:"

You must have missed this:

Quote :

"Where in the Constitution does it grants people the right to education? Where in the Constitution does it FORCE kids to go to school? Yet the investment into education has been one that has proved very successful, with people able to do more than they could 100s of years ago. Medicine is continually getting better, technology is getting better. Yet people want to throw up the Constitutional flag on a national health insurance plan, or on "forcing" people to get insurance. Providing insurance to every citizen is something that can not only increase the quality of life, it can help reduce downtime at jobs, as people will be more inclined to get help before an illness becomes a serious issue. People won't hesitate to go to doctors because it'll cost them thousands of dollars. And yes, it means that the same stupid people who choose to make a stupid decision won't be able to anymore"

What you quoted is a condensed version of that:

Quote :

"Since education, drug and food laws are for the good of the people and to me, the proposed penalty for being uninsured is for the good of the people, that I'm OK with overlooking a minor constitutionality conflict."

Quote :

"You have, however, consistently accused others of cherry-picking, which IS a classic two wrongs fallacy."

No. Accusing other's of cherry picking isn't a two wrongs fallacy. It's calling you a hypocrite. I'm not arguing that because the proposed tax is unconstitutional and that since we allow education laws, which are also unconstitutional, therefore the proposed tax is fine. On the contrary. I think I've made it clear that I don't think the fact that they're unconstitutional makes it wrong. I've been saying that because it serves a greater good for society, that it's OK to ignore the constitution.

I'll address your other post next, as I don't think I have enough room in this one.

1/8/2010 7:13:05 PM

Quote :

"The companies have no more of an incentive to compete for a sick person than they do for a healthy person. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I HAVE SAID THIS."

And for the fifth time then, I disagree with you, for reasons stated five other times. But because you've obliged me, I'll return the favor. Their former company has more of a reason to compete for their own sick person to help reduce the loss that they took on them.

Quote :

"No, it doesn't. How is their 10 bux different from my 10 bux? IT ISN'T."

This is the third time that you've used this, and I still don't see the relevance. The money they pay may be worth the same. All you're trying to do is assert an irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

You're ignoring the fact that although the money they pay is the same, the money spent on them by the company is NOT. So while that sick person may be contributing the same amount as a healthy person, their worth to the company is very different. A sick person is a loss, while a healthy person is a gain.

Under the current system, a company tries to cut it's losses by dropping sick people if they can. Under 1337 b4k4's system, the only way to cut their loss is to keep the sick person. Something that makes your logic false. If your logic was true, then there is no reason for insurance companies to deny sick people. And if I were to try to assert that, then I would be building a strawman based on your false logic.

Quote :

"The loss is there whether the sick person is there or not. DURRRRRRRRRRRRR. Even you have said so."

Indeed, I've said such. I also said that if they keep the sick person, then they'll lower that loss.

Quote :

"Why bring it up? What's the point? How is that at all relevant to healthcare?"

I'm simply wondering if you think that they are at all beneficial to the country. Really, I'm just wondering why you don't think a tax penalty wouldn't be beneficial. I concede that we differ on the Constitution. You feel that since such a penalty is unconstitutional. I feel that although it's unconstitutional, it's benefit outweighs it's unconstitutionality. I'm trying to get a different answer out of you, besides that it's unconstitutional. I feel that if you're going to bring up the constitution on such a tax, that you're doing it because you don't agree with the tax.

1/8/2010 7:35:15 PM

Quote :

"There is NO strawman."

Bullshit. You said that I stated people shouldn't be able to get insurance, when I said no such thing. You then attacked that position. It's a textbook strawman.

Quote :

"From what I can tell, YOU ARE saying that a natural consequence of going without insurance is that if you get sick, you can no longer get insurance."

Read again, buddy. I said they should not be insured against the medical expenditures when they didn't buy insurance. Massive difference. Reading comprehension 101, dude.

Quote :

"Are you now telling me that you've NEVER talked about people not being able to get future insurance?"

Absolutely. You are talking about not being able to pay for it. As referenced by "If a person with HIV/AIDS doesn't get coverage before they get sick, how are they going to get treatment? Yeah, they'll be able to get treatment for a while, until they run out of money. They might be able to get a loan..." That is entirely about PAYMENT.

Quote :

"No. Accusing other's of cherry picking isn't a two wrongs fallacy. It's calling you a hypocrite. "

Ah, then it's tu quoque / ad hominem, as originally stated. Take your pick, dude. it's still a fallacy.

Quote :

"You're ignoring the fact that although the money they pay is the same, the money spent on them by the company is NOT. So while that sick person may be contributing the same amount as a healthy person, their worth to the company is very different. A sick person is a loss, while a healthy person is a gain."

But, the sick person is a loss, whether they stay or not. You have this asinine nothing that the company keeps a balance on each person. THEY DON'T. They keep an overall balance. Their only concern with keeping a sick person is their same concern with keeping a healthy person, namely that it's a customer. That's it!

Quote :

"Under 1337 b4k4's system, the only way to cut their loss is to keep the sick person. "

Bullshit. The loss remains, whether the sick person stays or not. The loss is overall, not per individual.

Quote :

"I'm simply wondering if you think that they are at all beneficial to the country."

So, you are trying to divert the issue. Got it.

Quote :

"Really, I'm just wondering why you don't think a tax penalty wouldn't be beneficial."

Because it's not as simple as a tax penalty. The whole fucking thing won't work. As such, it's not "beneficial," to use your words. That it is entirely unConstitutional is, frankly, a side issue.

Quote :

"I'm trying to get a different answer out of you, besides that it's unconstitutional."

I've never really harped to you about its Constitutionality. Nice attempt at continuing the two-wrongs fallacy via strawman.

1/8/2010 8:53:54 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. You said that I stated people shouldn't be able to get insurance, when I said no such thing. You then attacked that position. It's a textbook strawman."

Well, let's go back through this, shall we:

I said (taken towards the bottom of page 48):

Quote :

"Additionally, your proposal does nothing to address people who are damned for making a poor decision in not getting healthcare. Something that the current proposal does address"

I obviously meant health insurance in place of healthcare, something that you did address and that I did fix. BUT I'M CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S INABILITY TO GET ANY INSURANCE IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO GET INSURANCE THEY GET SICK!

You said:

Quote :

"And you have failed to explain why people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their stupid decisions, other than liberal panty-twisting."

I then said:

Quote :

"And you can't offer why they should, asides from conservative panty-twisting. People fucking make mistakes! There's plenty of times where people make far larger mistakes in their lives, and yet they get a second chance. But nope, not this one."

You then said:

Quote :

"And what deterrent is there to making the mistake if you don't actually suffer the consequences of making said mistake? What is there to keep other people from doing the same stupid thing?"

Time and time again, your position has been against people getting coverage for a condition that they developed if they're uninsured. Time and time again, I've argued that people should be allowed to get coverage for a sickness even if they were uninsured when they developed the problem. I really don't give a shit whether you you feel that people should be allowed to get insurance EXCEPT for what they developed while uninsured. Why do I not give a shit? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! Such position is irrelevant to the argument.

Now, to this quote that you accuse me of building a strawman out of:

Quote :

"Well, actually, what you mean to say is, "It's well, NOT BEING ABLE TO GET INSURANCE IF YOU GET SICK." And no, I don't think that's a "normal" consequence."

This one? Yes? You're getting caught up in semantics, SOMETHING YOU'VE bitched at me TIME AND TIME again. IT'S CLEAR THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT GETTING INSURANCE FOR A CONDITION YOU DEVELOPED WHILE UNINSURED. A POSITION THAT I HAVE MAINTAINED.

Quote :

"Read again, buddy. I said they should not be insured against the medical expenditures when they didn't buy insurance. Massive difference. Reading comprehension 101, dude."

You're JUST NOW bringing that up. You're JUST NOW bringing up a stance that is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. We're talking about people getting coverage for a condition they developed while uninsured. DURRR...

Quote :

"Ah, then it's tu quoque / ad hominem, as originally stated. Take your pick, dude. it's still a fallacy."

Uhhh... You can't even determine what type of fallacy it is. You're the one making the assertion, HOW ABOUT YOU TAKE YOUR PICK! And just a second ago you were accusing me of using the two wrongs don't make a right fallacy.

You're right that cherry-picking is found in logically fallacies, BUT THEY'RE NOT A DEFINING ASPECT OF ONE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

All I'm trying to do is get you to explain why you're against a tax penalty for people who CHOOSE to go uninsured? That's it. There's no false logic in it. I've explained my end of it. I've explained that although you are possible right about it being unconstitutional, I don't see the constitution as defining what's right or wrong, just like I don't see religion as defining what's right or wrong either.

Quote :

"But, the sick person is a loss, whether they stay or not. You have this asinine nothing that the company keeps a balance on each person. THEY DON'T. They keep an overall balance. Their only concern with keeping a sick person is their same concern with keeping a healthy person, namely that it's a customer. That's it!"

I think we're going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round on this and not getting anywhere, except reiterating what we've already said. I think that under 1337's plan they will keep a balance on each sick person and try to retain them to try to minimize the loss they took on them.

Here's what I said before:

Quote :

"My beef is with what's in bold. I don't think it will work out that way. There's nothing to stop the companies from discriminating between sick and healthy individuals. His plan will most certainly generate competition for sick people. His plan is to get insurance companies to cover what they said they will pay. No doubt about that. What I don't like is the effect."

Which you said:

Quote :

"I wouldn't 100% agree with the way you are interpreting it, which is certainly a valid interpretation."

We differ on what we believe will happen in a hypothetical situation. I concede that it's entirely possible that I would be wrong, and that the companies would continue to to just lump their loss into one thing.

Quote :

"The loss remains, whether the sick person stays or not. The loss is overall, not per individual."

The overall loss is made up of individual losses. Minimizing the individual loss would minimize the overall loss.

Quote :

"So, you are trying to divert the issue. Got it."

Nice diversion.

Quote :

"Because it's not as simple as a tax penalty. The whole fucking thing won't work. As such, it's not "beneficial," to use your words."

Care to expand upon why it won't work? If you make the tax penalty high enough, to the point where it makes no sense to go uninsured, I don't see what the problem is.

Quote :

"That it is entirely unConstitutional is, frankly, a side issue."

As do I. Which is what I've been trying to get at for quite some time and get you to admit that.

Quote :

"Nice attempt at continuing the two-wrongs fallacy via strawman."

Are you sure that it's not the tu quoque fallacy?

1/8/2010 10:26:47 PM

proof, meet pudding

http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/hea_lif_exp_hea_yea/hea_per_cap_gov_exp_on_hea_in_int_dol/flag

1/10/2010 12:17:10 AM

Means nothing without any information about controls for life style and what sort of treatment expenses were done. We are a largely unhealthy nation and that has less to do with our access to health care, and more to do with our propensity to choose fast food and junk food over home made food, combined with an increasingly lazy lifestyle. Never mind a higher violent crime rate in many major population areas that would bring down life expectancy.

A better bit of information would be life expectancy for a given disease and treatment compared to costs. I mean, it's great if the UK spends half as much as the US on treating cancer patients, but if US cancer patients live 50% longer, well that tells us a bit more about the spending doesn't it?


[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM. Reason : sdfg]

1/10/2010 10:43:27 AM

Quote :

"Schwarzenegger said the health bill will increase costs for California because of an expansion of the Medicaid program, but he noted that the bill that passed the Senate covered those costs for Nebraska. "I just cannot imagine that why we would have ... our Senators and Congressional people, how they would vote for something like that," he said. "Were they representing Nebraska and not us?" "

The house health bill passed by something like 5 votes. It wouldn't take many of the 30 or so California democratic representatives to bail on Obama to throw this bill on its ear.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14161126

1/10/2010 10:45:07 AM

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/10/2010 10:49:08 AM

The public option is increasingly looking as if its not going to make the final bill. At this point, is there anything in this 'reform' that even the left want?

1/11/2010 11:59:55 AM

im sure there are plenty of people who would take the hit on the stuff that the bill does have, just because it will prevent future reform. (ex: the past reforms did nothing to fix anything and cost a bunch of money!!)

[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : not that public option is all that much better]

1/11/2010 12:20:08 PM

For what it's worth, RAND just released an objective analysis of the House bill. I had no part in the analysis but know a few of the people who did. Supposedly a similar analysis of the Senate bill will be released soon.

http://www.randcompare.org/publications/summaries/The-Potential-Impact-of-House-Health-Reform-Legislation

From the press release (full document available for download at the link):

Quote :

"Health reform as set forth in legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in November would cut the number of uninsured Americans to 24 million by 2019 (a 56 percent decrease) and increase personal spending on health care by about 3.3 percent cumulatively between 2013 and 2019, according to an independent assessment released today by the RAND Corporation. In addition, the study finds that under the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) cumulative federal spending to help low-income people buy private insurance would total $445 billion by 2019 and federal spending on Medicaid would increase by $559 billion (a 21 percent hike) over the same period. The findings are based on the results of analyses using a micro-simulation model created as a part of RAND COMPARE, an ongoing, independent effort to provide decisionmakers and the public with objective information about health care reform. The analysis, released today at http://www.randcompare.org, examines the impact the House bill would have across a variety of alternative design scenarios. "Our findings show that the policy changes in the House bill would extend health coverage to a substantial number of currently uninsured Americans," said Elizabeth A. McGlynn, associate director of RAND Health and co-leader of the COMPARE project. The RAND conclusions generally are consistent with estimates about the impact of the bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan legislative office that provides the official analysis of Congressional legislation. Compared to the CBO analysis, the RAND analysis does predict a somewhat slower decrease in the uninsured rate and estimates that about 6 million fewer people will become insured under the House plan. The scenarios modeled by RAND researchers outline what impact the House plan could have on issues such as individual insurance mandates, the mandate that employers must provide workers health coverage and the expansion of the eligibility definitions for the federal-state Medicaid insurance program. Additional findings from the analysis include the following: By 2019, about 12 million more people would be enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance, 10 million more enrolled in Medicaid and 8 million more enrolled in nongroup insurance than if there were no changes made to the health care system. The individual mandate plays the largest role in increasing insurance coverage; it alone would reduce the number of uninsured by 23 million (43 percent). The employer mandate and Medicaid expansions by themselves would reduce the number of uninsured by 7 million and 10 million, respectively. If eligibility for Medicaid were set at 133 percent of the federal poverty level rather than 150 percent as it is in the House bill, the number of people on Medicaid would decline by 1.9 million but the number of uninsured would decrease by 500,000. Premiums in the employer-sponsored insurance market will be 2 percent lower by 2019 than they would be under the status quo. However, some increases will be seen in the rates charged to individuals who purchase health plans in the nongroup (Exchange) market. People who are without health insurance in 2019 are expected to be younger, healthier and wealthier than would be expected in the absence of the health policy changes contained in the House bill. The House bill is under consideration as leaders from the House and Senate seek to arrive at a compromise health care reform package that must return to each chamber for a vote. RAND researchers also are working on an analysis of the bill the Senate passed in December."

1/11/2010 12:31:14 PM

"Now, let me get this straight.....We are going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes…all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?"

~Anonymous

1/12/2010 1:18:17 AM

Looks like people's rationale for disliking the bills isn't all that conservative, after all.

1/12/2010 8:31:05 AM

again, the problem with the legislation (and the resulting polls) is that its centered completely around insurance. Insurance regulation, insurance costs, insurance covereage, etc... Which is why it wont ever work. Kill the current bill, work on energy and education for the next year and a half. Then come back and fix the healthcare system by focusing on healthcare costs, instead of insurance.

In the meantime sneak in some quick fixes to the insurance system (encourage HSAs, individual deductions for insurance, competition accross state lines, etc...) while working on other issues.

1/12/2010 10:32:06 AM

Or gut insurance companies completely and go to a single provider, which by default reduces prices across the board because that provider would have such immense bargaining power.

1/12/2010 10:54:27 AM

I love getting my health care from the lowest bidder.

Monopolies: Only bad when it isn't of the government variety.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason : asdfsd]

1/12/2010 11:01:16 AM

I'm sorry but are you under the impression that private insurance shops for the best health care as opposed to the cheapest? If that's the case, you're mistaken.

1/12/2010 11:07:28 AM

I know I do. Under my current plan I have a shit ton of authorized providers, and if I don't like them I can always use money from my HSA or pay cash out of pocket for a different doctor and ultimately if I find the coverage unacceptable I can choose a different insurance provider. It's a hell of a lot more choice than I would get if I only had one provider to "choose from."

1/12/2010 11:13:53 AM

Go ahead and shop around for insurance providers then. You'll find the in network and out of network lists to be quite similar. I'm also curious as to why you think one government provider would suddenly lock you out of choices. I know when I used public healthcare in europe for the damn flu, I wasn't limited to a certain hospital in a disreputable part of town or any nonsense like that.

Furthermore, unless you make quite a bit of money, your out of pocket contributions or HSA won't cover you if you have a serious ailment.

1/12/2010 11:19:11 AM

Quote :

"Or gut insurance companies completely and go to a single provider, which by default reduces prices across the board because that provider would have such immense bargaining power."

which would work great with providers willing to take the public option. If they decide they aren't getting enough they'll just decline to deal with people not paying cash or close down entirely.

Or much more likely, they'll just bill the government for the ammount they want, and the government will pay it. If they fed doesn't pay the entire thing, they'll bill it to the patient.

1/12/2010 11:20:02 AM

Coakley in trouble? Pharma and HMO lobbyists to the rescue

Quote :

"With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama's health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is here. Of the 22 names on the host committee--meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley--17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there's also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation. All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on Coakley's host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee. Those HMOs (like Aetna) or drug companies who don't have lobbyists in Coakley's top tier of fundraisers? They're covered, because the host committee includes four lobbyists representing the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), two representing America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and one representing the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) So think of these top donors to health-care reform's 60th vote next time President Obama claims that he's battling the special interests in this battle. The army listed below is on Obama's side, and these clients will all benefit from "reform." Here are some of Coakley fundraiser hosts with some of their current health care clients: * Thomas Boggs, Patton Boggs: Bristol-Myers Squibb * Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies: Amgen, BIO, Merck, PhRMA * Susan Brophy, Glover Park Group: Blue Cross, Pfizer * Steven Champlin, Duberstein Group: AHIP, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis * Licy Do Canto, Raben Group: Amgen * Gerald Cassidy, Cassidy & Associates: U. Mass Memorial Health Care * David Castagnetti, Mehlman, Vogel, Castagnetti: Abbot Labs, AHIP, Astra-Zenaca, General Electric, Humana, Merck, PhRMA. * Steven Elmendorf, Elmendorf Strategies: Medicines Company, PhRMA, United Health * Shannon Finley, Capitol Counsel: Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross, GE, PhRMA, Sanofi-Aventis. * Heather Podesta, Heather Podesta & Partners: Cigna, Eli Lilly, HealthSouth * Tony Podesta, Podesta Group: Amgen, GE, Merck, Novartis. * Robert Raben, Raben Group: Amgen, GE. If Coakley pulls it out, this is the crowd that will have brought her here. If health-care reform passes, this is the crew that will have won."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Coakley-in-trouble-Pharma-and-HMO-lobbyists-to-the-rescue-81067542.html#ixzz0cW9gmRFa



Wait, aren't these the people supposedly protecting us from the big bad health care corporations?

1/13/2010 1:17:25 PM

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/10/01/13.php#29293

Interesting discussion on "Cadillac" plan tax - which, for my 2cents, is a half baked idea, we should instead include the value of benefits in taxable earnings, regardless of relation in value to an "Cadillac" designation. The statements by the AFL-CIO representative especially demonstrate why our legislative system is becoming increasingly worthless. No one argues with logical proposals when those proposals are in the theoretical stage. But, when someone realizes that a proposal doesn't make them Paul and very well might make them Peter, objective scrutiny of the proposal flies out the window.

1/13/2010 1:52:27 PM

Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform
January 9, 2010

Quote :

"It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill."

Quote :

"But if [Scott] Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill. The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk's successor, but not until the state certifies the election. Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor's Council would take a while."

Quote :

"In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard. 'This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,' said Brown in a statement. 'Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we've already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign's leading supporters.' A spokeswoman for Coakley's campaign declined to comment Friday."

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249

How low will the Democrats stoop to cram this stinking, rotten fucking bill down Americans' throats?

1/13/2010 3:15:54 PM

Your side is using 40% of the members of the least representative body of Congress to hold back what a majority of the most representative body and 60% of the other body has passed.

You have no basis to assume you have The People on your side.

1/13/2010 3:50:49 PM

^ You continually bitch about logical fallacies--have you ever heard of argumentum ad populum? Of course you haven't--so I'll educate you. Just because many believe something (if they even do), this doesn't make it true or right.

1/13/2010 3:55:32 PM

You missed my point.

Quote :

"How low will the Democrats stoop to cram this stinking, rotten fucking bill down Americans' throats?"

...works on the assumption that the Democrats are passing this bill in spite of the American people. Considering the fact that the opposition is coming from the Senate and from Senators mostly coming from states with small populations, this couldn't be further from the truth; the opposition is a minority of Senators who were elected from an even tinier minority of the population.

Then take into account the chart I posted above, the the majority of people are either happy with the bill or upset only because it doesn't go far enough.


The Democrats aren't cramming this down anyone's throats; they're merely having to fight tooth-and-nail to get past an obstructionist minority.

1/13/2010 4:03:23 PM

Quote :

"Your side is using 40% of the members of the least representative body of Congress to hold back what a majority of the most representative body and 60% of the other body has passed. "

Exactly as intended. The Senate was designed in part to be a check on the pop stupidity of the House.

That said, just because it's cheaper to buy a Representative instead of a Senator doesn't mean that the House is actually representing the American people.

1/13/2010 5:39:09 PM

Quote :

"The Senate was designed in part to be a check on the pop stupidity of the House."

A check. Not a roadblock. The Senate is objectively more of an impediment than it's ever been in history.

1/13/2010 6:25:55 PM

^^^ You want populism? Here you go:

Poll: Obama Health Care Marks Hit New Low
January 11, 2010

Quote :

"President Obama's approval rating on handling health care is at an all-time low, according to a new CBS News poll, something that is helping to drag down his overall approval rating. Just 36 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's handling of health care, according to the poll, conducted from Jan. 6 – 10. Fifty-four percent disapprove. In December of last year, 42 percent of Americans approved of the president’s handling of health care, and 47 percent approved in October."

Quote :

"Moreover, there is little consensus that the reforms under consideration represent the right approach. Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea



[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2010 6:35:05 PM

This has already been discussed:



The majority of the opposition to the bill comes from people who believe it didn't go far enough.

That's hardly consistent with what you're claiming.

1/13/2010 6:39:54 PM

^ Lack of support is lack of support.

1/13/2010 6:40:50 PM

Only if your argument depends on an overly simplistic interpretation, it would seem.

1/13/2010 6:41:42 PM

^ Not simple--straightforward. And my point stands.

1/13/2010 6:59:52 PM

No matter how hard you want your point to still be valid, it won't be until you actually defend it.

1/13/2010 7:03:38 PM

^ Ignoring facts doesn't mean that those facts cease to exist. And my point stands--you're free to attempt prove me wrong.

1/13/2010 7:05:58 PM

What facts have you presented?

Quote :

"Lack of support is lack of support."

Displeasure with a bill doesn't mean you're against its ultimate passage.

For instance-- I don't think this bill went far enough. I still want it passed. IMPOSSIBLE.

1/13/2010 7:09:04 PM

Quote :

"Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Quote :

"Lack of support is lack of support."

hooksaw

Now I invite you to kindly piss off.

1/13/2010 7:10:58 PM

Quote :

"wouldn't that be why we were talking about them continuing to pay the bills, even if they dropped you? Moreover, you originally said they can drop anyone now, suggesting that that makes it unlike insurance. Stop being obtuse."

Quote :

"No, because, as I said, 10 bux from me is the same as 10 bux from you."

Quote :

"I've supported it over and over again."

Quote :

"No, it's not."

Quote :

"Yes, you have said it"

Quote :

"So, you admit to using them."

Quote :

"Disprove it, and you might change my mind. If you don't disprove my claim, then shut the fuck up."

Quote :

"And? What the fuck does that have to do with what I'm saying? NOTHING!"

Quote :

"What the fuck am I missing. Please, point it out! "

Quote :

"So I gave my reasoning. You didn't like it, so instead, you'd rather cop out."

Quote :

"Knock the horse shit off. You got called out for fucking up what you had said"

Quote :

"If you think that it's such a logical fallacy, then why don't you EXPLAIN why it is. Just because you keep claiming that it is a logical fallacy, doesn't make it is. So either explain why it is a logical fallacy, or respond to my assertion."

Quote :

"Knock the cop out off, or I'll start doing it."

Quote :

"Yes, you've said it a million times, and I have proven that it will not happen. You just won't address my points that I made, troll."

Quote :

"Absolutely not. You are flipping back and forth, which you have been called out on before."

Quote :

"YES IT FUCKING IS!!! You've even said as much!"

Quote :

"You derived an argument based on a logical fallacy. I don't have to go on to defend the shit you come up with after the fallacy, because it based on a fallacy. As in, by definition, anything that is based on that fallacy is illogical. THAT'S WHY I DON'T RESPOND TO IT."

Quote :

"No, you haven't proven that it won't happen. If you're so damn sure of it, how about you reiterate it for me, troll? "

Quote :

"No. It doesn't. You can keep saying it, but it really has nothing to do with my point. "

Quote :

"AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT."

Quote :

"You just don't like that answer. Tough shit. Knock the cop out off. "

Quote :

"AND AGAIN! I'M NOT DOING THAT"

Quote :

"It's very obvious that you are too dumb to understand what I'm saying"

Quote :

"Please explain to me what argument that I'm trying to make?"

Quote :

"rescinded that argument we allow to make that me that my more to it than they do for a no more of an is there or not"

Consider yourself fucking PWNT

1/13/2010 7:12:34 PM

Quote :

"Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies."

I also don't think the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies.

I also want the current bill passed.

1/13/2010 7:15:12 PM

Health Care Reform
17% Expect Health Care Plan To Lower Costs, 57% Expect Costs to Go Up
Monday, January 11, 2010

Quote :

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs. Fifty-two percent (52%) also believe passage of the legislation will lead to a decline in the quality of care. Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. As has been the case throughout the debate, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to be opposed. Just 19% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed."

http://tinyurl.com/kwqzrs

1/13/2010 7:21:29 PM

I expect costs to go up.

I still want the bill passed.


I don't think you understand what sort of evidence you'd need to back your argument.

1/13/2010 7:24:58 PM

^ And yet you rely on the worst anecdotal evidence--your own opinion. STFU.

1/13/2010 7:26:27 PM

It must burn like lava to be so consistently wrong.

1/13/2010 7:36:51 PM

Quote :

"A check. Not a roadblock. The Senate is objectively more of an impediment than it's ever been in history. "

And our government is objectively far beyond anything that our founding fathers could have intended. It seems only fair that as the government gets larger and more onerous, that the checks and balances also become more onerous.

1/13/2010 8:12:30 PM