RE: Obama's first broken Promise

RE: Obama's first broken Promise (Full Version)

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

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:19:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 You may notice during the past 2 decades the increase problems in the US health care system. While during the same time period, a corresponding dramatic increase in illegal aliens entering the US occured. In no way, one has anything to do with the other. [8\|] So you`d divide out the sick illegals from the rest and then leave`m in an ally or backwood? Or maybe you`d be so generous as to take them to border and shove them back over,ambulatory or not? ~~~~~~~~~ Under bush,the amount of illegals crossing over, doubled. Did the problems with our health care system also double, over the last 8 years? Nope. Could the bush law that Medicare/Medicaid and the VA could not(by law) bargain with drug companies for for better bulk pricing, have a negative affect? Yup.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:36:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch Capitalism isn't a "system" It's freedom. You may think so, but I strongly feel you're mistaken. The result of unchecked capitalism grinds the small people up in the gears of trusts, special interest groups, class exploitation, product addiction and corporate welfare. The extreme example of socialism is the Soviet Gulag, or as you pointed out, the National Social Party in WWII Germany, where government control and redistribution of wealth was forceful and unchecked. Both of these examples are abuses of either system, as both philosophies at their hearts have human good in mind. The truth is, we need a mindful centrist balance of both. Thinking so does not condone slavery of the people by the government.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:39:08 AM)
That's not true. Smokers have lower health care costs, overall. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 I believe the people who smoke already siphon off enough health care dollars from the non-smokers, and insurance-wise that non-smokers already pay a premium to cover the costs of smokers, so this doesnt bother me.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:44:52 AM)
Piling taxes on smokers is a piling of taxers on the poorest, the oldest, and the least-educated among us, but a tax that Socialists feel they can go around patting themselves on the back for, and compliment each other on because they count it among all the other good deeds that thet mistakenly believe that they constantly do.

DomKen -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:45:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That's not true. Smokers have lower health care costs, overall. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 I believe the people who smoke already siphon off enough health care dollars from the non-smokers, and insurance-wise that non-smokers already pay a premium to cover the costs of smokers, so this doesnt bother me. So you're in favor of killing old people to save the taxpayer money? For those that didn't bother the linked article details that while smokers are much sicker than the general population and have health care costs much more higher than the nonsmoking part of their age cohort, smokers die so much earlier than non smokers that smokers entail less total health care costs.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:47:36 AM)
I'm in favor of honesty, and freedom. It's kind of weird how you accuse a guy who corrects a fact of being a serial murderer, you need to get a grip. If you want to jump out of an airplane, go ahead. But if your parachute fails to open, as you plummet, you've the mindset to blame those damn Conservatives who didn't stop you from jumping for your death? I guess if Liberals jailed everybody we'd all finally be safe from everything, then they could really feel good about themselves. [:'(] quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you're in favor of killing old people to save the taxpayer money? For those that didn't bother the linked article details that while smokers are much sicker than the general population and have health care costs much more higher than the nonsmoking part of their age cohort, smokers die so much earlier than non smokers that smokers entail less total health care costs.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:48:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That's not true. Smokers have lower health care costs, overall. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 I believe the people who smoke already siphon off enough health care dollars from the non-smokers, and insurance-wise that non-smokers already pay a premium to cover the costs of smokers, so this doesnt bother me. sure..... lol,cuz they die quicker...lol uh-boy...... what a fun fact....lol

rulemylife -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity That's not true. Smokers have lower health care costs, overall. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052 quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 I believe the people who smoke already siphon off enough health care dollars from the non-smokers, and insurance-wise that non-smokers already pay a premium to cover the costs of smokers, so this doesnt bother me. "Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages." Sooooo, we should encourage people to smoke, drink heavily, become as obese as possible, and never exercise. That way people will die at young ages and save us all the burdens of increased health costs.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 7:57:04 AM)
Yeah, no, yeah... we should round everybody up, and herd them into communes, and keep them all safe from themselves... quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife "Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages." Sooooo, we should encourage people to smoke, drink heavily, become as obese as possible, and never exercise. That way people will die at young ages and save us all the burdens of increased health costs.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 8:08:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yeah, no, yeah... we should round everybody up, and herd them into communes, and keep them all safe from themselves... I don't recall saying anything like that. What I do recall is how you claimed to favor honesty while you were misrepresenting the facts in your link to try and imply that smokers are healthier than non-smokers. Now that several people have pointed that out, you are trying to throw up a smokescreen so you don't have to address that.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 8:22:41 AM)
Misrepresented? Excuse me, I corrected a fallacy and the link I used backed up the facts. If you didn't realize that smokers die younger than non-smokers before my link enlightened you... that is no reason for you to accuse me of wanting people to die, or of misrepresenting anything. quote: What I do recall is how you claimed to favor honesty while you were misrepresenting the facts in your link to try and imply that smokers are healthier than non-smokers.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 8:29:13 AM)
If the Socialists want to force smokers to quit they should pass a law and ban it, like pot is banned. If they are indeed trying to curb smoking with the tax, then they aren't funding healthcare with it, are they. The tax money would dry up if their scheme worked... It's only more doublespeak, and just know that their ever elusive lie is in there somewhere, which the lie is that they are here to help.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 8:47:45 AM)
If you are advocating a private health system, then the added costs from added longevity from aboilition of smoking is a moot point. The employer who pays for the private plan would see a decrease in his costs, and he would care less if "sunset years" costs go up due to additonal longevity. The taxpayer would see reduced costs from additional private coverage lasting longer and covering more people on account of reduced premium costs. Additional cost from additional logevity is true, but its still a win-win for both sides, because you have 2 sources funding it and the full bore isnt piled onto either one. Thats provided the political aim is still on a private system. I think the private system would be viable and far more equitable than it is now, but its simply been screwed over and pillaged in the name of a few ultra-greedy folk (just like everything else has), and its showing its faults, and as such, its doing more to channel people down a socialist path more than anything. Sadly, the private system did it to themselves. Collapsed from within. Also, I noticed that study was done in the Netherlands, where universal coverage exists. Does the study factor in the premature death rate in this country caused by a lack of access that some patients have to any coverage. If the lack of access here for those falling through the cracks is causing premature death, how does that distort the average life expectancy numbers as it relates to the study?

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 8:57:58 AM)
quote: Sadly, the private system did it to themselves. Collapsed from within. I think that the mess that the health care field is in today is a complicated one, but there are many arguments which can be made. For example, what if all the current free government health care money dried up? Doctors and hospitals would have to charge market rates again, wouldn't they... I had better watch out, something tells me I'm about to get the "psychopathic killer" label hurled at me again... [sm=duck.gif]

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 9:03:35 AM)
I will also say that NAFTA is aggravating our slide towards socialized medicine, as it is responsible for the biggest loss of employer-based private coverage in the history of the system. When NAFTA allows manufacturers to look at locales where the workforce has even less longevity than here in the US and accepts those locales for their cheaper production costs, our employer-based private system guts itself a little more. You cannot have a healthy private coverage system built on a foundation that is sprouting more leaks (decline in coverage) than a dam made of swiss cheese. Absolutely, NAFTA is hastening the decline of our private health system.

rulemylife -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 9:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Excuse me, I corrected a fallacy and the link I used backed up the facts. No, you used one obscure study and tried to portray it as fact by taking it out of context. There are far more studies that don't come to the conclusions your link did, as demonstrated by one of the references in your own link, cited below. It can also be argued that the study is fallacious in itself by not comparing specific age groups of smokers and non-smokers. You can't compare health care costs between someone who dies at 50 to someone who lives to 90. My guess is it was a study commissioned by the tobacco lobby. Hodgson TA. Cigarette smoking and lifetime medical expenditures. Milbank Q 1992;70:81-125. [CrossRef][Medline] Abstract Lifetime expenditures on medical care for cigarette smokers are higher than for neversmokers. Expenditures increase with the amount smoked and are as much as 47 percent higher for male heavy smokers when discounted at 3 percent. The U.S. population of current and former smokers incurs excess medical expenditures of almost $200 billion every five years. Smokers' excess medical care is largely funded by private health insurance, but other funding sources, private and public, including out-of-pocket payments, Medicare, and Medicaid, share in the burden.

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 9:37:40 AM)
[sm=biggrin.gif] WHOSE study is "obscure"??? Are you sure you really want to try to make the argument that the tobacco lobby published a study which establishes that smokers die younger? You would be better off to continue to push your other argument, which was that anyone arguing facts has to be some kind of a cold serial killer...

Sanity -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 9:48:53 AM)
You know what's sad? What's sad is that people will go to these extremes to argue for government control of our lives. What are your arguments? Government control of our lives might in theory possibly save the government a little tax money. Government control of our lives will potentially enable us all to die at 110 in underfunded nursing homes - after living for fifty years with dementia, ED and bed sores. Fucking huzzah, just what I don't want... Leave me the fuck alone and let me light up in peace if that's what I choose to do. I don't want your government help!

rulemylife -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 9:56:22 AM)
First, I said that it was my guess, because the tobacco lobby can no longer refute that smoking causes disease, it would be a logical alternative to try and argue a different viewpoint to support their cause. Ignoring the facts of added year for non-smokers to claim smokers have less health care costs would seem to be typical of the tobacco companies years of propaganda to convince the gullible that their product is not harmful. Second, my citation was listed as a reference source for your study. So if it is obscure does that not make yours even more so?

rulemylife -> RE: Obama's first broken Promise (2/8/2009 10:08:35 AM)
No, I'm not making any argument for anything other than your link was not a fact, as you claim, but a very poorly done study designed to advance a specific agenda. Light up all you want, you have my blessing. Just don't try to tell me that smoking doesn't have an impact on overall health care costs.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875