@Cycloptichorn,
I do not want the Federal government addressing the root causes of these unhealthy lifestyles -- excessive fats, calories, smoking, drug use, and lack of exercise.
I do want private organizations
contining to address the root causes of these unhealthy lifestyles by educating and otherwise helping those who suffer from those problems.
@Advocate,
First, you stop repeating your false allegations.
Then I will stop repeatedly rebutting your false allegations with excerpts from the written opinions of those folks I believe are more competent than you are.
@ican711nm,
i know you are, but what am i?
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
First, you stop repeating your false allegations.
Then I will stop repeatedly rebutting your false allegations with excerpts from the written opinions of those folks I believe are more competent than you are.
Once again you show that you are a genuine POS.
AGAIN!
I think your posts are based on your and other's false opinions and sophistic arguments, and that these false opinions and sophistic arguments appear to be derived from those persons who are desciples of Saul Alinskiy--a person, who based on his writings, was a sociopath.
Saul Alinsky wrote:The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing;
Radicals should be political relativists and should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The issue is always the revolution;
The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth.
The NYTimes is reporting that the dozen or so House Democrats who were withholding support of the health care legislation because of their concerns re abortion language are going to set that issue aside. Some of them will now vote for the bill today, virtually assuring passage.
@ican711nm,
I gather that you are a desciple of Adolph Hitler.
@Advocate,
AGAIN ... AGAIN!
I think your posts are based on your and other's false opinions and sophistic arguments, and that these false opinions and sophistic arguments appear to be derived from those persons who are desciples of Saul Alinskiy--a person, who based on his writings, was a sociopath.
Saul Alinsky wrote:The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing;
Radicals should be political relativists and should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The issue is always the revolution;
The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth.
re ican: I found your source and most of that is straight Horowitz, not something Alinsky says at all. And even so, SO WHAT? Alinsky was all about empowering EVERYBODY, and that is precisely what democracy is. You may not believe in civil rights or labor unions, ican, but Alinsky did, and those are among the people he empowered. You seem to be anti-American in your viewpoints, ican, but Alinsky most definitely was not.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, I read it! What I'm really asking you, though, is if you want the Federal government addressing the root causes of these unhealthy lifestyles - excessive fats, calories, smoking, drug use, and lack of exercise.
How would you suggest we address these problems - if, as your correspondent says, this is the true way to health care reform?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn is asking a valid question here... why not answer it?
********
Haven't been following the latest on this thread, just wanted to break in with a quick woo.
Woo!
********
@sozobe,
you said it. woo is right.
A refrain heard over and over yesterday during the House debate was the idea that the American public is adamantly opposed to this health care bill.
A couple of the last polls before Sunday belie how outraged people were:
Rasmussen: 54% oppose vs 41% support
Gallup: 48% oppose vs 45% support (within the margin of error).
The Republicans snarled that the Democrats will pay dearly come November when all seats in the House and some 33 Senate seats will be on the ballots. It seems to me that the Repubs have overstated the degree of outrage. Election day is 6 months away and our attention span is short. The only significant aspect of the law that will kick in immediately (correct me if I am wrong) is that insurance companies can not deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It will be tough to use that as a campaign issue against Democrats.
Rasmussen has its Daily Approval rating for President Obama (% Strongly Approve minus % Strongly Disapprove). Each day's rating is based on polling conducted over a period of the previous 3 days.
3/20 (based on polling 3/17, 3/18 & 3/19): Rating of -21;
3/21 (3/18, 3/19, 3/20): -16
3/22 (3/19, 3/20, 3/21 prior to the vote): -12
3/23 (3/20, 3/21, 3/22 after the vote): ??
3/24 (3/21, 3/22, 3/23): ??
3/25 (3,22, 3/23, 3/24 all after the vote: ??
Rasmussen also says 47% approve of Obama, while 53% disapprove, which seems to be a gain of 9 points for him in the last three days. Be interesting to see an instant tracking poll of approval or more clearly from the stats, disapproval of Republicans.
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
The only significant aspect of the law that will kick in immediately (correct me if I am wrong) is that insurance companies can not deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It will be tough to use that as a campaign issue against Democrats.
Yeah, I don't disagree. What you'll see happen now though is that the insurance companies have to react to this increase in expense by raising prices on everyone who currently has healthcare. Since most healthcare coverage is through the employer, many of whom probably have annual contracts that won't be renegotiated until Oct/Nov; this price increase may be pretty small between now and then. But you'll likely be able to see what happens to prices on the open market between now and then....and you can bet on seeing a lot of ads warning you of how much your 'share' of employer coverage will increase next year (and many employers may 'warn' their employees depending on how the negotiations go). All of that might happen near the November elections.
The republicans will campaign on prices going up, and base that on fears of this new legislation. And to be fair, prices will go up, there is not enough in this bill (anything?) to bring prices down.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack, David Horowitz obtained the information he wrote in his BARCK OBAMA'S RULES FOR REVOLUTION THE ALINSKI MODEL from what Saul Alinsky wrote in his books:
Reveille for Radicals (1946), and
Rules for Radicals (1971).
What Horowitz wrote is consistent with the following article written by Mike Seal who appears sympathetic to what Saul Alinsky wrote.
Quote:
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm
saul alinsky, community organizing and rules for radicals
Saul Alinsky's work is an important reference point for thinking about community organizing and community development. His books Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971) were both classic explorations of organizing and remain popular today. Mike Seal examines Alinsky's continuing relevance to the activities of informal educators, community organizers and animateurs.
contents:
introduction · saul alinsky's life and work · alinsky on means and ends · alinsky on liberalism and radicalism · rules for radicalism · conclusion · further reading and references · how to cite this article
...
About the writer: Mike Seal is a Senior lecturer in Informal and Community Education at the YMCA George Williams College in East London. He is also a tutor on a post graduate certificate in Health Issues for People Experiencing Homelessness for Oxford University. He has worked in the supported housing field for 18 years as a front line worker, manager, trainer and development worker in Liverpool, London and Birmingham. He is the author of Resettling Homeless People: Theory and Practice (RHP 2005), Working with Homeless People: A Training Manual (RHP 2006), Understanding and responding to homeless experiences, cultures and identities (RHP:2007 and Not about us without us: client involvement in supported housing (RHP:2008).
My eyes hurt. Those all caps posts are as painful as they are vacuous and repetitive.
I can't argue with you, MaP, about what your prediction is re health insurance premiums. I disagree with you, but I see no point in getting into a debate about whether your speculation is better than my speculation.
Today on Wall Street, shares of companies involved in health rose, in some cases by 10%. Some unquantifiable amount was due to the elimination of uncertainty. The markets hate uncertainty.
I searched out perhaps a score of articles re "winners & losers" in this bill.
Here are a few:
-Health insurance companies: it is a pretty big net win for them. While they have to end the practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, limiting life-time benefits or terminating coverage once a client becomes ill, there will be 30M potential new customers for their product.
-Drug companies. Same result, perhaps, re new customers. Potentially, the cost of drugs could drop as developers get more revenue early on from new drugs before they go to the "generic."
-Privately run health care facilities. Big winner as their client base of people covered by insurance rises.
There are other players, but I will stop at that.
