RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor

RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 8:54:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Termn8tr made it clear you are not allowed to post like that anymore thompson.... luckydog: When mod 11 speaks I listen...but then she's hawt and he's not. thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 8:55:43 PM)
She is apperantly absolutly corrupted by her absolute power also, so stay on her good side.

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 9:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 She is apperantly absolutly corrupted by her absolute power also, so stay on her good side. luckydog: She and me exchange notes all da time. So far my most virulent response to her has been "aye aye ma'am" which all "knuckle draggers know means "I hear and I shall obey". thompson

Owner59 -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 10:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 She is apperantly absolutly corrupted by her absolute power also, so stay on her good side. Looks lickydog is still smarting,from having his pee-pee smacked by a moderator.(he-he) To everyone else,... Could I get a response to this? http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1268144 Post #: 205

Sinergy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 10:37:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Everything you just said is a deflection. I simply pointed out that cellular companies are more concerned with stealing each other's business than with providing a superior product. Government control ensures that these companies provide the service people contract with them to provide. If cell phone companies are more concerned with enticing customers away from other cell phone companies (which is business, not stealing) that is their right. Whether that attitude will have a positive or negative effect on their business will vary from company to company (as it would in any kind of business) and will be just one factor in that company’s profitability. Exactly. Now, this directly disagrees with the contention made earlier that market forces would cause corporations to provide superior service to the consumer. Which is it? I am simply pointing out that in the instance of cell phone companies, market forces are not providing a superior product to the consumer. I cited a dozen or so other instances where government regulation forced corporations to provide a product that was edible (superior is debatable, but at least the percentage of dead rat in my hot dog is regulated) to the consumer. quote: If you have a contract with a cell phone company that says in exchange for your money they will provide service where you live and work and they are not providing that service, then they are in breech of that contract and you can seek redress in the civil courts. So what you are saying is that if I am unhappy with the service which market forces dictate I am stuck with getting, I can rely on government regulation (i.e. civil courts) to seek recompense. Wouldnt it just be easier to have the government make some basic standards to begin with and save everybody a lot of court costs? I guess my point is that I am not Mr. Litigious who wants to waste everybodies time and energy filing lawsuit after lawsuit to get my way. My point is that corporations do not, of their own accord, provide even a minimal standard of protection or service to the consumer unless compelled to by regulation from a party with superior resources and superior power. Sinergy

Sinergysdarlin -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/11/2007 10:43:42 PM)
so i recon us consumers should just sit complacently by and accept that fate which shall befall us, come what may, eh? god bless amerika in all its glory.

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 6:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 She is apperantly absolutly corrupted by her absolute power also, so stay on her good side. Looks lickydog is still smarting,from having his pee-pee smacked by a moderator.(he-he) To everyone else,... Could I get a response to this? http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1268144 Post #: 205 Owner: Get a grip dude...if he answered that question then he could not ramble on about how the government has no right to blah blah blah... As for luckydog I would suggest that getting in a pissing contest with a mod is not a particularly productive endeavor. On the upside his post are much more interesting now that he has quit calling those whom he disagrees with liars. thompson

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 9:06:52 AM)
quote: ...rather than quoting lengthily... etc. You have a reasonable expectation of safety but you do not have a right "to expect car owners to do all in their power" not to hurt you because this would be unreasonable on the face of it. I could make my car safer for pedestrians by duct taping pillows all around it but is that reasonable? You are quite right in pointing out safety regulation regarding toxic waste dumping will have the same effect as requiring safety regulations on autos – namely driving up prices for products and services thereby placing them out of the price range of some people. In each case we have to ask if the overall benefit to some (or even all) is worth inflicting the negatives on others. In the case of "don’t dump your toxic waste in the school yard," I would say yes. But what if the case is requiring all cars to have airbags? It seems reasonable on the surface, airbags will save lives. But they will also drive up prices with the results I noted above. Laws mandating airbags soon turned out to have another unintended consequence – they can kill small children. So is this a reasonable safety mandate? Not from where I’m standing. If people who can afford and airbag want one, they can buy it. Meanwhile, some people would prefer to have a car without an airbag than no car at all – they see the benefits of having a car, even one without an airbag, as outweighing the increased risk of driving without an airbag (who assumes risk is another whole can of worms we haven’t opened up yet). I fail to see why we should substitute their right to make that choice and substitute it with government mandate. As for government being the best oversight I would say that it is the ultimate oversight authority that is accountable to the public (at least in theory) but that don’t necessarily make it the best. Aside from corruption there remains the fact that the government overseers are usually less knowledgeable about the industry they are overseeing than the industry itself leading to mandates that sound good to them but can be unworkable for the industry. If they do have the needed knowledge it’s because the were probably working in the industry, which means they will have friends and contacts in the industry which in turn will make corruption more likely. Indeed, we often get upset if an "industry insider" becomes the head of the regulatory industry overseeing that particular industry. It is regarded as a conflict of interest. You ask "if the cost of your freedom is pain and misery for others is it really as attractive?" The problem here is that pain and misery has always been a part of life and always will be. It cannot be legislated away. Some pain and misery can be prevented with reasonable safety precautions but there comes a point where we are diminishing our freedom while gaining diminishing returns of our safety.

Sinergy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 9:33:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b I believe that Corporations have the same obligation to obey the law the same as the rest of us. I also believe, however, that they too have rights and that one of those rights is not to be micro-managed by the government. I believe this not only because this will likely have unintended negative consequences (that I have lengthily pointed out) as government tries to make everything fair for everybody, but because I also – simply – believe in freedom. Fair enough. Now, it was government intervention that mandated safe food and water. Do you have a right to safe food and water? Or is this a case you would cite that proves a Government intervention resulting in food packaging laws and anti-trust statutes essentially curtailed the freedom of a corporation to make a profit for it's investors, and we should go back to the 1920s business model. Since cell phone coverage is an issue we are going to have to agree to disagree on, lets take the situation described by Upton Sinclair in his book "The Jungle." Corporations have proven in the past that they have 0 interest or care in the welfare of the individual. Your points basically imply that our Government, which is elected to represent our collective interests, should not be allowed to care for the citizens of this country. According to your points, a corporate entity should be allowed to serve entirely in the interests of their shareholders, untrammelled by Government regulation. Where do you draw the line between my freedom and Dow Chemical's? quote: If I start up a new business and the government comes in and start micro-managing, in essence making me a clerk in their business – how does that make me free? You are not free to inflict negative outcomes on other people. If you came up and punched me in the face you would be hauled off to jail. I want the state to regulate your home building (for example) to insure that the house you build for me is free of toxic waste, well built, maintains safety standards, etc. If you feel this impinges on your freedom to build a huge steaming pile of crap, then I feel your pain. Just me, etc. Sinergy

luckydog1 -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 10:03:46 AM)
But thompson, I have never called anyone a liar for disagreeing with me. Though I have called people on a few direct lies, mostly over false quotes, which I gave proof for.

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 1:06:08 PM)
quote: No ideological filter to turn off. Just read what I said and don't take one sentence out and try to change the meaning of my post. You assert that a for profit corporation should not be compelled by the government to do anything. I contend that as long as they are getting a monopoly from the government they must dance to the governments tune. quote: I am not confusing anything. It has nothing to do with could or should but rather the right of the government to impose conditions on a government licensed monopoly. Yes it does. How many times do I have to say this before it penetrates? I am not disputing that government has certain, legitimate, powers and authority either in general or in this particular concerning cell phones and the licencing of airwaves. I am disputing whether the mandating of universal cell phone coverage is ideal. Moreover, I question why some people are always so quick to turn to the government for redress of every problem, particularly in light of the fact that the redress of their problem may cause problems for others. quote: No we are not. We are talking about the government having the authority to impose conditions on a government licensed monopoly and nothing else. Once again you are attempting to control the debate (oops, I’m sorry, discussion) by attempting to have sole control over defining it away from other people’s points that you don’t like. quote: This is a misscharacterization of my position. When I point out historical fact I am simply pointing out historical fact. Lets not let your idealogical filter confuse you...how about you pay attention to what I say and not what you want to hear. No, I do not believe it is a mis-characterization. In almost every situation where someone points out some mis-deed by some other country you jump in with some "historical fact" putting the blame on America. quote: Once again this is not about universal cell phone coverage but about the right of the sanctioning body to impose conditions on the monopoly they are conferring. Once again, no it is not. quote: No one has asserted a "right" to cell phone service. Well it sure as hell seemed implied to me when someone wanted the government to step in and provide universal coverage because they couldn’t get service where they worked. quote: If those seeking a government sanctioned monopoly cannot afford the terms of the monopoly then they are free to not apply for one...aint free enterprise grand? And if they already have a licence and the government suddenly changes the terms (impose, to use your word), terms which the company cannot fulfill, thus putting them out of business, leaving there customers in the lurch, and their employees out of a job? Isn’t government power grand? You get to totally fuck over people and not be held accountable. quote: Once again a misscharacterization of my position. The only "uber rich" that have rankled me are those who use their wealth to avoid paying taxes. As long as the rich (uber or otherwise) pay their taxes and obey the law you have nothing against them? I’m sorry, but I have a hard time believing that. quote: Do you presume that all poor people live in trailer parks and speak with a drawl....how droll. This is what I’ve come to enjoy your posts so much. Somewhere along the line you can always be counted on to take something out of context, treat it as an absolute, then rewrite it in the form of a question that implies bigotry. Oh, by the way, I’m half Hick and throughly proud of it. quote: Once again a misscharacterization of my position and once again something taken out of context. No. It was actually me parodying you.

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 1:58:06 PM)
quote: Exactly. Now, this directly disagrees with the contention made earlier that market forces would cause corporations to provide superior service to the consumer. Which is it? I am simply pointing out that in the instance of cell phone companies, market forces are not providing a superior product to the consumer. I cited a dozen or so other instances where government regulation forced corporations to provide a product that was edible (superior is debatable, but at least the percentage of dead rat in my hot dog is regulated) to the consumer. I’m starting to feel a headache coming on here. I do not contend that market forces will cause corporations to provide superior service but rather that market forces will reward corporations (or any business, not all businesses are corporations) that succeed in pleasing their customers whether that means with lower prices and/or better service or what have you. Since your idea and my idea of what being pleased means differs, then different corporations can succeed using different tactics. The Cheapo Cell Phone Company may succeed selling cheap, no frills, service while the Fancy Dancy Cell Phone Company succeeds by selling cell phones with all the bells and whistles. quote: So what you are saying is that if I am unhappy with the service which market forces dictate I am stuck with getting, I can rely on government regulation (i.e. civil courts) to seek recompense. No, I am saying that if you sign a contract with someone and they break it, you can seek redress in the civil courts. That’s what they are there for. quote: Wouldnt it just be easier to have the government make some basic standards to begin with and save everybody a lot of court costs? It would seem that way on the surface but my whole point is that appearances are deceiving. You want to save "everybody" a lot of court costs but – as I think I have aptly demonstrated – arbitrarily imposing minimum standards (the definition of which will vary from person to person), you are placing costs on others. quote: I guess my point is that I am not Mr. Litigious who wants to waste everybodies time and energy filing lawsuit after lawsuit to get my way. No, you’d rather have the government do it for you, imposing the costs on others. Why should others pick up the tab for your dispute with the cell phone companies? quote: My point is that corporations do not, of their own accord, provide even a minimal standard of protection or service to the consumer unless compelled to by regulation from a party with superior resources and superior power. That’s a very bigoted statement. It presumes that all the people who run a business (or even just large corporations) are possessed of nefarious intent. Now, I’ll be the first to agree that a concentration of power leads to a concentration of corruption but even I grant exceptions. That aside, it is the "superior power" with "superior resources" that concerns me because it is capable of a lot more mischief, a lot more ability to abuse people’s rights, than those who have to keep their customers happy. I have no problem with a law that says no rat meat in hot dogs but if you did find rat meat in your hot dog you can at least say "I’m never going to buy from that company again." On the other hand when the government uses eminent domain to kick you out of your house to build a new cell phone tower (wouldn’t that be ironic) who are you going to appeal to?

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 6:42:35 PM)
quote: Fair enough. Now, it was government intervention... etc Why do we keep going around and around on this? I am beginning to feel like a parrot (a parrot with a headache). Why is my contention that the government should not mandate nationwide cellular coverage being morphed into some bizarre fantasy about allowing "untrammeled," corporations leave to put rat meat in your hot dogs and dump toxic waste in your new home? What I am questioning is whether mandating nationwide cellular coverage falls under the same category as "don’t put rat meat in hot dogs." I don’t think it does. Dumping toxic waste in the schoolyard is an overt act. Not providing cellular service at the harbor is not. If I manufacture widgets can the government mandate where I dump my waste (filthy process, widget manufacturing)? Certainly. If I sell them only in the eastern United States can the government tell me to sell them in California, even though my market research shows widget sales in California result in a loss for me? We can argue about whether they have that authority till we both sprout daisies but my contention is that they do not or at least should not. Even if they do have that power that doesn’t mean that they should for reasons I have made clear (unintended consequences). I guess what bugs me is the mind set some people have that we should look to the government to solve every little problem we have. I don’t understand why we would want to reduce our freedom to engage in legitimate commerce. Nor do I understand why we willing to trust the same government that is rife with such corruption and abuses of power.

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 6:53:15 PM)
quote: To everyone else,... Could I get a response to this? http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1268144 Post #: 205 What exactly is it that you want to know?

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 6:59:51 PM)
Ya know, over eight hundred posts and I have yet to be contacted by a mod. I'm not sure if I should take that as a compliment (I'm such a nice guy) or an insult (I'm a wimp).

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 7:00:54 PM)
Who here that is ranting and raving against universal healthcare has seen Sicko? People in countries that have universal healthcare were asked how long it took them to see a doctor. It didn't take them any longer than it does here. A doctor was filmed making house calls. What about the quality of healthcare? Here, doctors are given bonuses for turning patients away. The universal healthcare doctor's salary depends on how well patients are cared for. Why would a doctor want to provide second rate care if his salary was increased for providing first rate care? They went inside a lock up facility that housed terrorists that took part in the 9/11 attack. These terrorists were given free healthcare. When 9/11 volunteer rescue workers were taken to the facility by boat to see the doctors there, instead of admitting them, they sounded the alarm. Apparently the free healthcare was exclusively for the terrorists. The volunteer 9/11 workers were finally given free health care and honored for their brave efforts IN CUBA. Several people were interviewed who lost loves ones because of private insurance companies refusing to pay. One woman lost her health insurance because she didn't list a yeast infection she was treated for under pre-existing conditions. Those of you who are against universal healthcare, please watch Sicko and then tell us what you think of universal vs private healthcare.

Sanity -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 8:51:32 PM)
quote: Laugh of the Day: Michael Moore Says, 'Every Fact In My Films Is True' By Dave Pierre \| May 17, 2007 - 20:53 ET Time magazine has interviewed Michael Moore in anticipation of his next film, Sicko, which reportedly takes aim at the U.S. health care system. (HT: Drudge.) The interview is a run-of-the-mill Q&A that's basically a yawner until Moore lets out some pure hilarity. TIME: Do you think people will accuse the movie of inaccuracy? MOORE: I offered $10,000 to anybody who could find a single fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 that was wrong. TIME: Have you had to pay anything? MOORE: No, of course not. Every fact in my films is true. And yet how often do I have to read over and over again about supposed falsehoods? The opinions in the film are mine. They may not be true, but I think they are. Good grief. "Every fact in my films is true"? Not even close. An entire industry has practically erupted in debunking Moore's films. Fahrenheit 9/11? Debunked: "Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11," (pdf) by Dave Kopel, Independence Institute (Note: Very lengthy) ... "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore," by Christopher Hitchens ... Bowling for Columbine? Debunked: "Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction?" by David T. Hardy (Note: Very Lengthy) ... "Moore admits to altering 'Bowling for Columbine' DVD" by Brendan Nyhan, SpinSanity.com ... "Bowl-o-Drama," by Daniel Lyons, Forbes magazine ... See also: MooreWatch ... MooreExposed ... "Moore's myriad mistakes," by Bryan Keefer, SpinSanity.com ... Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man by David Hardy and Jason Clarke ... It seems Moore owes $10,000 to a lot of people! http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12834

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 9:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But thompson, I have never called anyone a liar for disagreeing with me. Though I have called people on a few direct lies, mostly over false quotes, which I gave proof for. luckydog: Not so(if I remember correctly you even called god a liar) and thus you were visited by Mod 11[;)]. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 9:38:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: Laugh of the Day: Michael Moore Says, 'Every Fact In My Films Is True' By Dave Pierre \| May 17, 2007 - 20:53 ET Time magazine has interviewed Michael Moore in anticipation of his next film, Sicko, which reportedly takes aim at the U.S. health care system. (HT: Drudge.) The interview is a run-of-the-mill Q&A that's basically a yawner until Moore lets out some pure hilarity. TIME: Do you think people will accuse the movie of inaccuracy? MOORE: I offered $10,000 to anybody who could find a single fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 that was wrong. TIME: Have you had to pay anything? MOORE: No, of course not. Every fact in my films is true. And yet how often do I have to read over and over again about supposed falsehoods? The opinions in the film are mine. They may not be true, but I think they are. Good grief. "Every fact in my films is true"? Not even close. An entire industry has practically erupted in debunking Moore's films. Fahrenheit 9/11? Debunked: "Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11," (pdf) by Dave Kopel, Independence Institute (Note: Very lengthy) ... "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore," by Christopher Hitchens ... Bowling for Columbine? Debunked: "Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction?" by David T. Hardy (Note: Very Lengthy) ... "Moore admits to altering 'Bowling for Columbine' DVD" by Brendan Nyhan, SpinSanity.com ... "Bowl-o-Drama," by Daniel Lyons, Forbes magazine ... See also: MooreWatch ... MooreExposed ... "Moore's myriad mistakes," by Bryan Keefer, SpinSanity.com ... Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man by David Hardy and Jason Clarke ... It seems Moore owes $10,000 to a lot of people! http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12834 Sanity: If this is true then why aren't they collecting the money? It would seem from the "extensive proofs" that are given you could collect a lot of money...what is stopping you? thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/12/2007 10:20:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: No ideological filter to turn off. Just read what I said and don't take one sentence out and try to change the meaning of my post. You assert that a for profit corporation should not be compelled by the government to do anything. I contend that as long as they are getting a monopoly from the government they must dance to the governments tune. quote: I am not confusing anything. It has nothing to do with could or should but rather the right of the government to impose conditions on a government licensed monopoly. Yes it does. How many times do I have to say this before it penetrates? I am not disputing that government has certain, legitimate, powers and authority either in general or in this particular concerning cell phones and the licencing of airwaves. I am disputing whether the mandating of universal cell phone coverage is ideal. Moreover, I question why some people are always so quick to turn to the government for redress of every problem, particularly in light of the fact that the redress of their problem may cause problems for others. You are the one talking about universal cell phone coverage. Neither Synergy nor I have suggested it. The reason that citizens seek for the government to stand up for them against the corporation that has broken its contract is because that is governments job...It is why we hire them. quote: No we are not. We are talking about the government having the authority to impose conditions on a government licensed monopoly and nothing else. Once again you are attempting to control the debate (oops, I’m sorry, discussion) by attempting to have sole control over defining it away from other people’s points that you don’t like. That would be exactly what you are doing by taking Synergy's position about lack of coverage in Los Angeles county and trying to make it a universal coverage question. quote: This is a misscharacterization of my position. When I point out historical fact I am simply pointing out historical fact. Lets not let your idealogical filter confuse you...how about you pay attention to what I say and not what you want to hear. No, I do not believe it is a mis-characterization. In almost every situation where someone points out some mis-deed by some other country you jump in with some "historical fact" putting the blame on America. So it would appear that you consider historical facts less important than your opinion. quote: Once again this is not about universal cell phone coverage but about the right of the sanctioning body to impose conditions on the monopoly they are conferring. Once again, no it is not. quote: No one has asserted a "right" to cell phone service. Well it sure as hell seemed implied to me when someone wanted the government to step in and provide universal coverage because they couldn’t get service where they worked. Synergy works in Los Angeles county,one of the most densely populated areas in the U.S. Just because you wish to imply that that means universal coverage does not make it so. quote: If those seeking a government sanctioned monopoly cannot afford the terms of the monopoly then they are free to not apply for one...aint free enterprise grand? And if they already have a licence and the government suddenly changes the terms (impose, to use your word), terms which the company cannot fulfill, thus putting them out of business, leaving there customers in the lurch, and their employees out of a job? Isn’t government power grand? You get to totally fuck over people and not be held accountable. The corporations do it all the time. If you read the last paragraph of most contracts it will most often state that the company retains the right to change any and all aspects of the contract pretty much at will. If you do not like it you are free to terminate your service. quote: Once again a misscharacterization of my position. The only "uber rich" that have rankled me are those who use their wealth to avoid paying taxes. As long as the rich (uber or otherwise) pay their taxes and obey the law you have nothing against them? I’m sorry, but I have a hard time believing that. I do not know why. I have stated that position on numerous occasions. Perhaps it is your ideological filter that keeps you from believing what I say. Why don't you go back over my post and see if you can find someplace where I say otherwise. quote: Do you presume that all poor people live in trailer parks and speak with a drawl....how droll. This is what I’ve come to enjoy your posts so much. Somewhere along the line you can always be counted on to take something out of context, treat it as an absolute, then rewrite it in the form of a question that implies bigotry. My post does not imply bigotry. It simply ask the question "do you believe that all poor people live in trailer parks and speak with a drawl?" Oh, by the way, I’m half Hick and throughly proud of it. What does being a "hick" have to do with being poor? quote: Once again a misscharacterization of my position and once again something taken out of context. No. It was actually me parodying you. Perhaps you might want to label it as such next time.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625