AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@old europe,

Quote:

If you have more evidence than Obama saying that he would be in favour of replacing the current system with a single payer system - something like actual plans and proposals to transform the current system into a single payer system, for example - then you'd have a point.

You seem to be saying that unless someone has a plan, then they cant support an idea.
I hope thats not what you are saying, because there is so much evidence that doesnt support your statement.

For example...
Most politicians support total nuclear disarmament, but nobody has a plan to get there.

Does that mean they dont truly support it?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I notice you never touched the issue of Obama's national security force that he wants that will be every bit as powerful and well funded as the military.

Back to that associations subject, then associations are inconsequential you claim? If someone belongs to a group that teaches hatred, such as the KKK, it doesn't matter? Somehow, you are not very convincing, cyclops, and I wonder if you are not even very convinced yourself, you have your doubts, but you are so far keeping them under wraps? It is difficult for me to believe that anyone with an ounce of common sense cannot see the same things that are there to see, without them making you at least a little nervous.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I'm not sure what your point here is.

Are you saying that we should judge Presidents by the purity of their thoughts rather than by their deeds? Are you saying that, if Obama is truly still in favour of a single payer system - and you have no way of knowing this - we should judge him by that, even if the system that gets implemented is not even remotely similar to a single payer system?

What exactly is your point here?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Not at all.
I am saying that since he has supported it in the past, and since he hasnt, to the best of my knowledge, changed his stance, I think it prudent to wait till there is an actual bill, instead of trying to guess what the final bill will be.

1 Reply

@old europe,

oe, mm is full of questions that really aren't associated with the reality; he's just another jerkoff who asks stupid, unrelated questions for people like you who he knows will respond. He's just jerking you around, because you allow him to. He's on my Ignore list.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Then why do you keep responding to my posts?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Not at all.
I am saying that since he has supported it in the past, and since he hasnt, to the best of my knowledge, changed his stance, I think it prudent to wait till there is an actual bill, instead of trying to guess what the final bill will be.

So you're opposed to describing the current proposals as a "single payer system"?

1 Reply

@old europe,

Quote:

So you're opposed to describing the current proposals as a "single payer system"?

As they are currently proposed, yes I am opposed to that.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "single payer system" being proposed.
And if there was, I would oppose that type of system.

However, I am still waiting to see what the final bill will be before I decide whether or not to support it.
From what I have read so far, in one version of the bill, I have some serious reservations about the bill.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

What are your reservations about the current proposals?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So you're opposed to describing the current proposals as a "single payer system"?

As they are currently proposed, yes I am opposed to that.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "single payer system" being proposed.
And if there was, I would oppose that type of system.

However, I am still waiting to see what the final bill will be before I decide whether or not to support it.
From what I have read so far, in one version of the bill, I have some serious reservations about the bill.

The problem with waiting until there is a final bill is the propensity of the current Congress to deliver it in the middle of the night and vote on it the next day before anybody has a chance to read it. Even before they have a chance to read it, much less analyze the ramifications and consequences likely to be a result of it. And the President, previous promises of transparency to the contrary, has a propensity to sign those bills before they are read or advertised to the people.

If we don't debate it while they're writing it, proposing it, advertising it, we probably won't have a chance to head off a bad bill if that is what they deliver to us. Everything is of immediate urgency to the point we can't afford to wait.

If the people don't make their wishes and concerns known, it could be too late to do so once the vote is called.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Yeah, this is an emergency. Never mind the fact we got along for over 200 years without it.

2 Replies

@okie,

You also got along for over 200 years without a National Missile Defense system.

0 Replies

@okie,

I'm still thinking about that stimulus package that had to voted and signed into law immediately because people were out of work and needed jobs now. But once it was a done deal, we see most of the money going for anything and everything that stimulates very little other than gratitude from the special interests getting it. And then they say that oh well, it was never intended to produce immediate results and most results will be years away.

Then why did it have to be delivered in the wee hours of the morning, voted on the next day, and signed into law by the President before anybody had time to read, much less analyze it?

By the way, Ican and Okie, thanks for words of support. And yes, it indeed feels good when opinion is validated by evidence rather than relying on partisan ideology and propaganda to advance that.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Agreed.

One of the things we hear from people that argue that our health care system is broken and must be totally replaced, is the argument that we come in a few notches down the list in life expectancy, we only live about 78 years, which is a year or two from others with universal health care, but still ahead of many others. I think though that the details of this are seldom discussed, such as how are infant mortality rates figured differently from country to country, how do homogenous populations and smaller populations affect the numbers, because we know that certain cultures may have different tendencies, lifestyles, or inherited longevity chances.

The truth is this is no emergency, and we could do a great deal by tweaking the current system to improve it. Most people are happy with their insurance, so if the problem is the minor percentage of uninsured, many of those are illegals, many could afford insurance but don't, and others qualify for medicaid but do not avail themselves of it. For the very very small percentage that can't afford it and don't have any other options, let us adjust the thresholds for medicaid, that would be better than putting the screws to the rest of us.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, Why do you continue to repeat lies? The health care system is not going to be replaced; it's going to add options. You're so ignorant, it amazes me that you graduated in the top of your class.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Agreed.

One of the things we hear from people that argue that our health care system is broken and must be totally replaced, is the argument that we come in a few notches down the list in life expectancy, we only live about 78 years, which is a year or two from others with universal health care, but still ahead of many others.

Yeah, up yours, Albania!

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

okie wrote:

Quote:

our health care system is broken and must be totally replaced

.

okie still believes what he writes. There's no cure for stupid! Nobody ever said the health care plan "must be totally replaced" except for people like okie the ignorant.

We have too many people like okie who doesn't know what they are talking about, but love to repeat what they hear from their party elders.

0 Replies

Ted Olson in the land of the sane...

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/us/19olson.html?hp

It's encouraging, I must say.

0 Replies

And a good thing to review and keep at hand...WHO ranking of world health systems...

Quote:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm still thinking about that stimulus package that had to voted and signed into law immediately because people were out of work and needed jobs now. But once it was a done deal, we see most of the money going for anything and everything that stimulates very little other than gratitude from the special interests getting it. And then they say that oh well, it was never intended to produce immediate results and most results will be years away.

This is untrue; the stimulus is directly responsible for the growth in State and Local government spending, one of the only areas of our economy which actually grew last quarter. It has had a direct effect upon our economy already.

Quote:

Then why did it have to be delivered in the wee hours of the morning, voted on the next day, and signed into law by the President before anybody had time to read, much less analyze it?

Probably for the same reasons the PATRIOT act was done that way by the Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know