@JPB,
Who said I am endorsing anything?
I find the contrast to the post above interesting and worthy of a discussion.
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:
Who said I am endorsing anything?
I find the contrast to the post above interesting and worthy of a discussion.
It's sparked interesting discussion all right, but not the one you wished, I wot
Perhaps if you had bothered to RTFA you wouldn't be looking silly right now. Posting pieces which directly contradict your stated position is not normally the way to get one's position ahead in an online discussion.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
I have stated no position.
What is silly is your apparent offense to an opposing point of view.
You're boring Cycloptihorn.
You do not want to discuss issues. You want to shove your point of view on others and have no tolerance for any opposition. That makes you weak.
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:
I have stated no position.
What is silly is your apparent offense to an opposing point of view.
That's the whole point - the Doctor in question isn't opposing my point of view at all. He's opposing yours. And I find it laughable that you could imagine that you have stated no position. Is this more of the faux-moderate bullshit you've been spouting?
Quote:You're boring Cycloptihorn.
You do not want to discuss issues. You want to shove your point of view on others and have no tolerance for any opposition. That makes you weak.
I'm sure it gets tiring to have people point out your errors repeatedly, but I don't plan on stopping doing it any time soon. Perhaps you could exercise a little more due diligence before you post, in order to avoid embarrassment in the future?
You are perfectly free to hold any opinions you like, but they do not reflect the reality of the situation in the slightest.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Who's reality do you refer to?
You have proven to be a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of any opposing point of view.
I find you a source of humor and your opinions of little relevance.
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:
Who's reality do you refer to?
You have proven to be a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of any opposing point of view.
I find you a source of humor and your opinions of little relevance.
Actually, I am not intolerant of opposing points of view; however, I do demand that those who wish to present arguments do even the most basic research and logical thinking before doing so, and I will not change from this. Many here do present arguments of this nature, and we have productive and wide-ranging conversations based on them.
It is readily apparent that you mimic your fellow Conservatives, in the belief that it is unnecessary to back up your accusations with either fact or logic. It is also apparent that name-calling seems to be your primary contribution here on A2K.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
You are a very funny person.
You demand? Are we all to live up to YOUR expectations and opinions?
You "mimic" your fellow liberals in the belief that only your point of view is important and all others must be called morons, stupid etc.... as is evident by the posts of your fellow liberals.
Your arrogance is duly noted and ignored by me.
Again, I find you a source of humor, not information.
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:
You are a very funny person.
You demand? Are we all to live up to YOUR expectations and opinions?
My expectations about the need for evidence and logic to back up arguments are truly the minimum that one would expect to be provided from an intelligent person. High-school classes demand the level of argumentation that I demand; however, many are not able to provide even this basic level. This should be a source of shame for those who post, as in an attempt to forward a point of view, they are instead forwarding their ignorance about basic logic and argumentative structure.
Quote:
You "mimic" your fellow liberals in the belief that only your point of view is important and all others must be called morons, stupid etc.... as is evident by the posts of your fellow liberals.
This is untrue. There are many here who disagree with me, in many cases vehemently, who I have never accused of stupidity or any sort of intellectual deficit whatsoever. However, I do not hold back from describing people according to my judgment of the quality of their output, and why should I?
Quote:Your arrogance is duly noted and ignored by me.
Again, I find you a source of humor, not information.
Both of these sentences are immaterial to me. Instead of dwelling on them, I will rest comfortably on the fact that you have not presented an argument worth defending in the slightest, and in fact have posted information which is supportive of the argument of your opponents rather than your own. I don't know how much humor that provides for
you...
Cycloptichorn
@Yankee,
Yankee wrote:
Whatever, young lady!
A retreat from the field coupled with a sexualized insult. Exceedingly impressive on your part.
To move on to other, more interesting matters,
Here's a link to the House version of the health care reform bill:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/DraftHealthCareReform-BillText.pdf
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Did I get your gender wrong?
Is that why you take offense?
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yankee wrote:
Who said I am endorsing anything?
I find the contrast to the post above interesting and worthy of a discussion.
It's sparked interesting discussion all right, but not the one you wished, I wot
Perhaps if you had bothered to RTFA you wouldn't be looking silly right now. Posting pieces which directly contradict your stated position is not normally the way to get one's position ahead in an online discussion.
Cycloptichorn
What is Yankee's stated position? I looked through the thread and couldn't find it.
Quote:On one side is the House Democrats' sweeping health care bill. It would require all individuals to obtain health insurance and force employers to offer health care to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses. A new public health insurance plan, strongly opposed by Republicans, would compete with private companies within a new health care purchasing "exchange" where Americans could shop for coverage.
Government subsidies would help the poor buy care, and seniors in the Medicare program would pay less for their prescription drugs.
The House Democratic bill, released by the chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction " Ways and Means; Energy and Commerce; and Education and Labor " left out key details of how it would be paid for.
Democrats are considering everything from taxing soda, to raising income taxes on upper income people earning more than $200,000, to a federal sales tax. [img=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31442604/ns/politics-capitol_hill] more[/img]
They must be out of their ever-lovin' minds!
This is interesting...
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49743
White House Stands by Obama's Claim That Single-Payer Health Care Works In Other Countries--It's Just Not Sure Which Countries Obama Meant
Quote:White House (CNSNews.com) - Two days after President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association that in some countries a single-payer health care system “works pretty well,” the White House reaffirmed that people in those countries liked their health care, but also said it did not know to which countries the president was referring
I would think that the WH would be able to name some of the countries that Obama was refering to.
Quote:“I don’t know exactly the countries. I think if you talk to the people in the countries that have that system, they think their health care is pretty good,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNSNews.com Wednesday during the daily press briefing.
Asked again if he knew specifically which countries, Gibbs replied: “I assume Canada, Britain, maybe France. I don’t know the exact countries, but again, I don’t think the president is going way out on a limb that some people in other countries have a health care system that they like. Just as some Americans like the health care system that they have
So since nobody knows which countries Obama was refering to, how can anyone do any type of comparison?
Or, are we just supposed to take Obama's word for it?
Quote:The criticism of single-payer health care " primarily as practiced in Canada and Europe " has been that operations and procedures are long-delayed or denied and health care is rationed to control costs. For example, in Canada, the average wait for a 65-year-old man to get a hip replacement is six months, according to the Freedom Works Foundation.
The average wait time in a Canadian emergency room is 16 hours and 18 minutes. Also, “the average cancer test and radiation treatment cycles vary between 6 to 8 weeks,” the foundation reported.
John Goodman, director of the National Center for Policy Analysis and author of the book, “Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Around the World,” has reported that in Britain, “at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there.”
Those dont sound like ringing endorsements for their medical systems to me.
jpb WROTE:
Quote:
On one side is the House Democrats' sweeping health care bill. It would require all individuals to obtain health insurance and force employers to offer health care to their workers, with exemptions for small businesses. A new public health insurance plan, strongly opposed by Republicans, would compete with private companies within a new health care purchasing "exchange" where Americans could shop for coverage.
Government subsidies would help the poor buy care, and seniors in the Medicare program would pay less for their prescription drugs.
The House Democratic bill, released by the chairmen of the three committees with jurisdiction " Ways and Means; Energy and Commerce; and Education and Labor " left out key details of how it would be paid for.
Democrats are considering everything from taxing soda, to raising income taxes on upper income people earning more than $200,000, to a federal sales tax. [img=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31442604/ns/politics-capitol_hill] more[/img]
They must be out of their ever-lovin' minds.
****************************************************************
RIGHT ON TARGET-JPB
As usual. Cyclops blah-blah-blahs but does not GIVE AND SUBSTANCE OR EVIDENCE. Cyclops is invited the read the following( he wont) but those who are interested in the subject may wish to see how OBAMA IS JUST TRYING TO PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES.
THE ARTICLE BELOW TELLS US THAT THERE ARE FEW DETAILS ABOUT THE HEALTH PLAN AVAILABLE AND CERTAINLY NOT ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO PAY THE MASSIVE COSTS WHICH WILL CRIPPLE THIS COUNTRY SINCE THESE COSTS WILL BE ON TOP OF THE 1.6 TRILLION THAT THE MAN FROM CHICAGO HAS ALREADY BURDENED THE TAXPAYERS WITH.
Note:
Blog Entry Comments (16) The Growing Case Against Obama's Healthcare Plan
June 11, 2009 04:50 PM ET | Peter Roff | Permanent Link | Print
By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
President Obama is ratcheting up the healthcare debate, hoping to have it wrapped up sometime this summer. As with his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the president and his Democrats seem to all-of-a-sudden be in a hurry, as though delay presages defeat.
They may be right. The more one looks at increasing the role of government in the healthcare industry, the less there is to like.
Part of the problem is that his plan, as yet, has no details, particularly in the all-important arena of how to pay for it all. As the Wall Street Journal reports Thursday, Obama's words at a Wisconsin town meeting "gave no new insight into how the administration would pay for an overhaul that U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Thursday could cost up to $1.2 trillion over 10 years."
Obama, the paper said, says he can get the money from come from reductions in Medicare overpayments and the elimination of fraud and abuse. But that is not nearly enough money, say many experts, leading to talk of all kinds of tax increases, reductions in deductions and perhaps even a European-style Value Added Tax or VAT to make up the difference.
Another problem is that, despite the failings of the existing system, the government-run examples look worse.
A May 28, 2009 article in Health Affairs, "The policy journal of the health sphere," by Sharon Long and Paul Masi of the liberal Urban Institute, finds that former GOP Gov. Mitt Romney's signature healthcare reform has led to a shortage of doctors, longer waiting times and rationing"exactly the kinds of things that critics of Obama's government, public option approach say will happen if the president gets his way.
"In Massachusetts, some 20% of surveyed adults seeking care were told doctors or clinics were not accepting new patients, or not accepting patients with their type of coverage. The rejection rates were concentrated among those enrolled in the 'public plan' option"no surprise, given that government coverage pays far lower rates to doctors, clinics and hospitals.," the Wall Street Journal said.
President Obama's fast-track approach to healthcare reform is an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Efforts to alter the marketplace, as RomneyCare did, will inevitably lead to higher prices for essential care and longer waiting times as the system becomes flooded with people taking advantage of this new "free" government service. What the White House wants is to capitalize on the unhappiness that some Americans have with the current insurance-based system to sell them on the idea that a government-run system would be free of problems as well as free of charge. And they don't want anyone to have time to think about why that might not be true.
What people like Cyclops either do not know or do not want to be made known is that Socialized Medicine is a horror--It is a way to kill medical care, not enhance it. In fact, in our neighbor to the North( many of whose citizens repair to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester when they need REAL medical care) has shown that their Health care plan is defunct. The Canadian Supreme Court itself has declared the Canadian Health Plan unconstitutional.
But I don't think that Cyclops knows what Unconstitutional means.
Note:
The Canadian Health plan was declared Unconstitutional by the Canadian Supreme Court BECAUSE the Health Plan had provisions which did not allow a Canadian Citizen to purchase Private Insurance. The gentleman who sued needed a new hip. He claims that he was in agonizing pain and had BEEN ON A WAITING LIST FOR OVER A YEAR.
The court then opened Canada up to private health plans.
It would appear that the Canadians do a fairly good job of taking care of catasthropic illnesses but are atrociously bad in the area of
illnesses or conditions which are elective.
Have a need for hip or knee surgery? Tough!! Wait in line.
Have a vision problem that needs surgery? Too bad, mate!
Why should this happen? Well, when the government( meaning the citizens through their taxes) pay for all kinds of medical procedures, everyone and I mean everyone gets into line-
Why not? It's free( except for the taxes, the bureaucratic control and the sometimes lackadaiscal approach to medicine by Medical Staff who, after all, are on the government payroll.
If you like the way the Post Office Operates and uses citizen dollars, you'lll love Socialized Medicine.
It would appear that the misfeasance of the Post Office called into being Fed Ex and other such companies. It seems that people are willing to pay for good service even if they have to pay more
