Obama '08?

Ican -- When you attempted to describe impeachment, you could not frame a grammatically sound, accurate sentence that represented the process.

You have repeatedly quoted this piece that is credited to Robert S. Lichter and to Stanlty Rothman. Their names are Samuel Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman. I have tried to correct your spelling of their names several times. Try googling these men.

Now, the ability to use language governs and limits one's ability to learn. You have demonstrated that, left to your own devices, you can not write a successful sentence.

You have also demonstrated that you can not accurately quote others.

Why should anyone here accept what you have to contribute?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Another comment, I think Obama wants to destroy private insurance, he wants companies to drop their insurance, because his end game is single payer government run health care. I don't think this is any secret to anyone that has followed Obama's words and actions.

I wish he would! What would the downside of this be?

Cycloptichorn

1. The loss of personal freedom and privacy.

What freedom is lost? What privacy is lost? Be more specific.

Quote:

2. Infecting the delivery of medical services with all the efficiency and personal consideration for which government bureaucracies are so well known.

Oh, as opposed to the oh-so-efficient system that private insurance has given us?

Quote:

3. The creation of yet another cadre of unionized government employees more dedicated to the preservation of their own positions and perogatives than the services it is their duty to deliver, and insulated by the government from the market forces that would otherwise keep them honest. They will do for health care what teachers unions have done for public schools.

This is no different whatsoever than our current private insurance system, which exists to profit off of not paying for services, and is insulated from market forces which would keep it honest.

Quote:

4. Massive new costs added to an already overburdened government budget, and the hastening of the financial collapse that is already affecting the nations of Europe.

The costs are merely shifted from what is currently being paid to private industries. In fact, it would be much cheaper overall than our current system - as is born out by the lower cost-per-person enjoyed by pretty much every other country in the world.

Now, as an exercise, can you list the benefits of having a single-payer system?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, I will let George answer your questions, but in all honesty your post really demonstrates a total lack of understanding what freedom means and why the free market is so much more efficient than central planning. It looks like you would learn from history and realize that central planning has caused more grief and suffering than can almost be imagined. You guys on the left seem to be so dense in regard to this, and you just persist in following a failed idealogy no matter how flawed and how many failures it has caused. I guess you have a religious fervor in regard to government, that somehow government is your magic answer to come to your rescue in virtually any problem or issue of life. After debating leftists here for the past few years, I have had to come to the conclusion that to many of you, government is your God, and the bigger the better. In other words, try to have the federal government do everything instead of local governments closer to the people, that is your preference.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

why the free market is so much more efficient than central planning

If this is true, why do other countries which use single-payer or socialized systems get very similar results to ours, while costing half as much? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation from you on this.

If the free market is so efficient, why do their costs rise 10% or more per year? Where is the ******* efficiency?!?!

If the free market is so efficient, why can people with pre-existing conditions not get insurance? Do you have any solution for this at all?

Your 'free market' has failed. There is no question whatsoever about this. Health care has been spiraling downward for years, due to 'free market' arguments such as yours.

I actually invite you to comment on this thread I started, which clearly shows how the Reagan Revolution - and the endless pimping of so-called 'free market solutions' - have lead to 30 years of terrible growth and a gigantic turnaround of the fortunes of our country:

http://able2know.org/topic/153570-1

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
why the free market is so much more efficient than central planning

If this is true, why do other countries which use single-payer or socialized systems get very similar results to ours, while costing half as much? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation from you on this.

If the free market is so efficient, why do their costs rise 10% or more per year? Where is the ******* efficiency?!?!

The problem is, there is absolutely no free market examples anywhere and the US has not had a free market in over 80 years. So where exactly are you getting your numbers from? Chances are you are trying to use a system for your example that in fact is not a free market at all. The cost increase is probably due to corruption based on the fact it is not a free market.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

For one thing, comparing the medical care from culture to culture, country to country, in terms of life spans, is a simplistic and fallacious comparison. There are numerous factors other than medical systems that determine life spans, which are ignored when simply looking at life spans. Also, I have relatives in foreign countries that are used as great examples by you guys, and I talk to these people, and I would never trade what I have here vs what they have. We could talk about this forever, but I have more important things to do today besides argue an obvious point with a complete dolt liberal living in Berkeley. If that is insulting, my apologies cyclops, but thats how I feel.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
why the free market is so much more efficient than central planning

If this is true, why do other countries which use single-payer or socialized systems get very similar results to ours, while costing half as much? I have yet to hear a cogent explanation from you on this.

If the free market is so efficient, why do their costs rise 10% or more per year? Where is the ******* efficiency?!?!

The problem is, there is absolutely no free market examples anywhere and the US has not had a free market in over 80 years. So where exactly are you getting your numbers from? Chances are you are trying to use a system for your example that in fact is not a free market at all. The cost increase is probably due to corruption based on the fact it is not a free market.

I agree with you, that 'free markets' don't exist and are a farce of a lie. It was Okie who was defending the so-called 'free market' system of healthcare in this country.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

For one thing, comparing the medical care from culture to culture, country to country, in terms of life spans, is a simplistic and fallacious comparison.

No, it isn't. You just don't like the comparisons because the US looks so shitty.

Quote:

There are numerous factors other than medical systems that determine life spans, which are ignored when simply looking at life spans.

Who said we are simply looking at life spans? I didn't. I'm also looking at cost per person, per year - which is usually half of what we pay for comparable results.

Quote:

Also, I have relatives in foreign countries that are used as great examples by you guys, and I talk to these people, and I would never trade what I have here vs what they have. We could talk about this forever, but I have more important things to do today besides argue an obvious point with a complete dolt liberal living in Berkeley.

You retreating from the argument, because you have no ******* clue how to respond.

Calling me a 'dolt,' when you continually weigh in with the shallowest analysis possible, is laughable, Okie. It doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

okie wrote:

I have more important things to do today besides argue an obvious point with a complete dolt liberal living in Berkeley.

Of course, because all liberals are dolts, right, you ******* bigot?

1 Reply

@kickycan,

You are typical as a liberal, kicky, whether you realize it or not, as your last comment provides strong evidence. I have noticed now for a long time, and other conservatives have also noted it, if you disagree with a liberal, many of them will accuse you of hating them and/or of being a bigot. Somehow, part of their mental well being is greatly influenced by their feeling that they must be liked, they must be loved, and everyone must agree with them. If they sense any disagreement, it gives them a feeling of rejection, which they simply cannot handle. Making a moral judgement of something they are doing or that another liberal is doing, as being wrong, is also a huge no-no for them, they take it as rejection and bigotry. There are so many interesting facets of this issue, it helps explain alot of things, one other one being that if you voted against Obama, according to many liberals it was because of bigotry, not because a person disagreed with his policies and his mindset, or did not think he had the experience and character to do the job.

In regard to me calling cyclops a dolt, we go back a long way and I think he can handle it. To put in different words, I think he already knows this, that I think he is just stupid or ignorant of the realities of what central planning does in comparison to freedom and free market capitalism. I think the old Soviet Union is a pretty good example of the results you can expect, as compared to the results in the United States, and it would seem that somebody as intelligent as cyclops would not continue to choose to be stupid or ignorant of the realities of these things.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

You are typical as a liberal, kicky, whether you realize it or not, as your last comment provides strong evidence. I have noticed now for a long time, and other conservatives have also noted it, if you disagree with a liberal, many of them will accuse you of hating them and/or of being a bigot.

No, actually, when you disparage, dislike or lump a whole group of people (i.e. "liberals") together in a negative way, you are a ******* bigot.

And you just did it twice you ******* bigot. Look up the word. I know you aren't an illiterate bigot, so maybe you'll be able to learn something about yourself by reading something other than Sean Hannity's blog, you ******* BIGOT.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree with you, that 'free markets' don't exist and are a farce of a lie. It was Okie who was defending the so-called 'free market' system of healthcare in this country.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong again. I do agree that to the extent that the government has already intruded into health care with Medicare and other programs, the medical industry has been corrupted from being completely free market. However, I could cite you many examples of how I have personally benefited from free market forces with my medical care. By carrying a very high deductible, my insurance premiums have been reduced, and besides that, my invoiced amounts have more than once been negotiated downward by paying promptly, and this includes doctors and hospitals. Another example just recently, an MRI was done at a much more economical provider, by simply shopping around. By consulting doctors, we also found the chosen provider also produced equally as good or better results than much higher priced locations. Not only was the doctor happy with it, but the insurance provider was also happy.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

Quote:

when you disparage, dislike or lump a whole group of people (i.e. "liberals") together in a negative way, you are a ******* bigot

IS that a bad thing then to be a bigot? I'd say that the ability to distinguish between groups is a valuable life skill. I for instance know that the KKK is not a group that I want to be involved with, nor with anyone who is a member of that group.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

Why don't you grow up and cut out the barnyard language, kicky? And it is becoming apparent here who the bigot is, and sadly it looks like you.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Why don't you grow up and cut out the barnyard language, kicky? And it is becoming apparent here who the bigot is, and sadly it looks like you.

No, if I was a bigot, I would be disparaging a whole group of people, like you do everyday. In my case, I am only disparaging one huge asshole, and using language that the asshole in question seems not to like. That would maybe make me crude, or lewd, and I accept those labels, as you should accept the label that you've placed on yourself with your idiotic generalizations, you ******* BIGOT.

Look up the ******* word if you don't understand it. It'll help, I promise, you dumb ****.

1 Reply

@okie,

HC isn't a free market, Okie, because the companies with large interests (Insurers, Pharma) spend vast sums of money to corrupt our government and get the laws they want, passed; and the ones they don't, don't. Witness the stripping of the Public Option from the recent HC reform bill. These groups spent over a hundred million dollars lobbying against it, successfully, because they knew it would destroy their business models, which revolve around NOT paying for health care. The market is gigantically skewed by the gaming that large money interests participate in.

Let us say that we moved to Single Payer health insurance. What is preventing you from choosing a high deductible plan or shopping around for the doctor you want in such a system? Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

In regard to me calling cyclops a dolt, we go back a long way and I think he can handle it.

You are correct. I don't take this stuff personally and I suspect we would be friends in real life.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
when you disparage, dislike or lump a whole group of people (i.e. "liberals") together in a negative way, you are a ******* bigot
IS that a bad thing then to be a bigot? I'd say that the ability to distinguish between groups is a valuable life skill. I for instance know that the KKK is not a group that I want to be involved with, nor with anyone who is a member of that group.

Very good, Hawkeye. Maybe you should go look up "nitpicking dickweed."

1 Reply

@kickycan,

and since we all distinguish between groups, because this is how the brain is wired, even if we try not to and even if we think that we don't we are all by your definition ******* bigots. You have managed to make the term bigot meaningless, and so we are all henceforth free to ignore you when you use it, because you are not saying anything.

2 Replies

@kickycan,

kickycan wrote:

okie wrote:

Why don't you grow up and cut out the barnyard language, kicky? And it is becoming apparent here who the bigot is, and sadly it looks like you.

No, if I was a bigot, I would be disparaging a whole group of people, like you do everyday. In my case, I am only disparaging one huge asshole, and using language that the asshole in question seems not to like. That would maybe make me crude, or lewd, and I accept those labels, as you should accept the label that you've placed on yourself with your idiotic generalizations, you ******* BIGOT.

Look up the ******* word if you don't understand it. It'll help, I promise, you dumb ****.

I looked up the term "bigot," and no I do not fit the description. I do admit, proudly by the way, that I do have problems with some groups of people, such as criminals. Do I hate criminals, no I don't think so, but I condemn their actions that were criminal, and I believe they are wrong. Does that make me a bigot, no I don't think so. To a much lesser degree, I also disagree with the policies and beliefs of many people and groups of people, but it is not because of the color of their skin or anything like that, it is due to a disagreement of policy, especially if those policies affect me and everybody else, and it does not amount to hate.

Applying the same to you, kicky, I think it is obvious to more than just me, you are talking and behaving in a very childish manner here, throwing out accusations and calling names, and I think you should grow up and talk in a much more civil and polite way, as an adult should. You can do that and still express your political beliefs. Do I hate you, no I do not, but I do not respect you, I admit to that. Not only do I admit it, I think I am very justified in it. I think what you resent so much is a guy like me, a conservative, that presents a very definite opinion about people known as liberal in their political beliefs, and you just cannot abide it, you are the one spewing hatred in your name calling and all of that.

This whole discussion is adding to the belief in my mind that it is liberals that are filled with hatred and bigotry, and that goes a long way in explaining why some of the worst examples of human suffering at the hands of other humans have been due to ultra liberal or ultra leftist idealogies. Making that statement will also enrage you, kicky, but sorry, I am not here to sugarcoat opinions to make everyone like me or to agree with you guys, I am going to speak what I believe to be the truth, backed by evidence.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know