RE: Health measures in stimulus package

RE: Health measures in stimulus package (Full Version)

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

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 3:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub I think what the democrat liberal elite want is pretty clear..not very confusing at all...the want me and the 85% of Americans who have healthcare see a system that works be destroyed in the interest of giving Big Government even bigger control over our lives. There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works."

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 3:54:33 PM)
Invoking Nazis in a thread such as this is immune to Godwin because the discussion questions at which point the elderly are merely a burden on the state... hopefully it's inevitable that reasonable people should remember the lessons learned from WWII when the discussion goes down this path. quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Godwin's Law again and this time only on page 2. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 3:59:06 PM)
When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example. Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: corysub I think what the democrat liberal elite want is pretty clear..not very confusing at all...the want me and the 85% of Americans who have healthcare see a system that works be destroyed in the interest of giving Big Government even bigger control over our lives. There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works."

slaveboy291 -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 4:22:47 PM)
quote: When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example. Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now. The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing. Goverment owns your body? Can you say, propaganda.

Lucylastic -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 4:30:00 PM)
Of course that is so much better than insurance companies telling you you cant have this or that drug/treatment/operation because you cant afford it or your cost just went up by 300 %. my mum lives in the uk, shes 75 next month and she has a few health issues, she has never been turned down for anything she has needed. My father died two years ago, ,he had a heart attack and was in hospital for five days before he passed. He was 73, he received stellar care and treatment. The system in UK and Canada isnt perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but given the mess yours is in as it is, I think its a much needed change for 15 or more million people.. but then selfish greed is selfish greed no matter how you try and paint it. Lucy

DomKnotts3 -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 4:36:43 PM)
Oh boy...

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 4:40:20 PM)
Let's discuss the bill Obama just signed, increasing federal cigarette taxes to a dollar per pack. Why did he do that, if they're truly our bodies, to do with and to live life with as we please? Let's say for the sake of argument I just had some fantastic sex, and I reach for a smoke, cuz I want to. Why is Barack Obama in my bedroom snapping his fingers and demanding his five cent cut before he'll let me light up? I thought Liberals were all about keeping the government away from our bodies and out of our bedrooms - but apparently that's just a myth. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 quote: When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example. Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now. The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing. Goverment owns your body? Can you say, propaganda.

philosophy -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 4:58:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Invoking Nazis in a thread such as this is immune to Godwin because the discussion questions at which point the elderly are merely a burden on the state... hopefully it's inevitable that reasonable people should remember the lessons learned from WWII when the discussion goes down this path. ...ok, let's for the sake of argument assume i grant all the arguments in your quote. Assuming that, you still haven't really addressed my substantive point. Restated, if we assume that health care resources are effectively finite......on what basis do we portion them out? Of course any such portioning will create winners and losers. Economic ability to buy health care, let's assume, is also a type of portioning. It's impersonal, requires few people to deny anyone anything. Yet it's still a form of portioning. Is economic ability to buy health care the best way to portion it out?

slaveboy291 -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:04:08 PM)
quote: Let's discuss the bill Obama just signed, increasing federal cigarette taxes to a dollar per pack. Why did he do that, if they're truly our bodies, to do with and to live life with as we please? Let's say for the sake of argument I just had some fantastic sex, and I reach for a smoke, cuz I want to. Why is Barack Obama in my bedroom snapping his fingers and demanding his five cent cut before he'll let me light up? I thought Liberals were all about keeping the government away from our bodies and out of our bedrooms - but apparently that's just a myth. That's because Sanity that's not goverment going after bodies, I mean really people like you are really really grasping at straws. Can't you think of a real argument rather this totally ridiculous "the goverments taking our bodies". You realize just how insane that sounds. I think you should change your name, with statements like that you certainly are not.

subrob1967 -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:24:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works." The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay.

subrob1967 -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:28:15 PM)
I for one hope for government health coverage, just think of how solvent SS will become once all these old people die before they can start collecting. Obama's all for killing babies and old farts, who's next? Caucasians? Asians?

Kirata -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy if we assume that health care resources are effectively finite......on what basis do we portion them out? The question follows from the assumption, of course. But why assume an insufficiency of health care resources, and then work forward from there? Personally, I'd rather see a line of thought that refuses to accept an insufficiency of health care resources as tolerable, and works forward from there. K.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works." The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay. That's total bullshit. I'm not calling you a liar, mind you - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know what you're talking about. But either way, it's total bullshit. The federal law mandating emergency treatment only requires hospitals and physicians to treat "potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening" emergencies. In other words, they're basically only obligated to treat people if they are in immediate danger of dying, losing a limb, or losing the function of an organ - and even then, they're only obligated to treat you up to the point where they're stable, and then they can toss you out the front door. Do you seriously maintain that this means "everyone in the United States has health care?" If so, I'd like to hear your argument explaining how that counts as having health care. Go on, check Rush Limbaugh's website; I suspect he's the one who got you into this embarrassing position, so make him get you out of it.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 5:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Let's say for the sake of argument I just had some fantastic sex, and I reach for a smoke, cuz I want to. Why is Barack Obama in my bedroom snapping his fingers and demanding his five cent cut before he'll let me light up? People who choose to smoke contribute directly to the rising costs of health care because of the enormous price of treating smoking-related illnesses. Call the tax a way of paying your fair share; something I thought you conservatives were all for.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 6:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example. Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now. Considering that according to the World Health Organization, the American health care system ranks highest in cost and 37th in overall performance out of 191 nations, and the Commonwealth Fund ranks us 19th out of 19, I'll take my chances that socialized health care might bring us back to at least within shouting distance of Norway, Portugal, and Ireland.

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 6:15:28 PM)
Can you not think of any other risky behaviors that government had ought to actively curtail for the exact same reason? I mean, come on - show us some of that famous Liberal creativity. There is practically no end to the potential reasons for government to invade our personal lives! quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda People who choose to smoke contribute directly to the rising costs of health care because of the enormous price of treating smoking-related illnesses. Call the tax a way of paying your fair share; something I thought you conservatives were all for.

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 6:41:11 PM)
Tort reform would go a long way towards lowering American health care costs, there is no reason why an aspirin should cost $10.00! John Edwards is a prime example of an ambulance chasing shyster Democrat lawyer who has gotten rich through driving the cost of American medical care through the roof. There are other common sense reforms well short of total communism that are perfectly capable of lowering health care costs so that they are more affordable for the average hard working person. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Considering that according to the World Health Organization, the American health care system ranks highest in cost and 37th in overall performance out of 191 nations, and the Commonwealth Fund ranks us 19th out of 19, I'll take my chances that socialized health care might bring us back to at least within shouting distance of Norway, Portugal, and Ireland.

HotWheelz -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 6:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Can you not think of any other risky behaviors that government had ought to actively curtail for the exact same reason? I mean, come on - show us some of that famous Liberal creativity. There is practically no end to the potential reasons for government to invade our personal lives! quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda People who choose to smoke contribute directly to the rising costs of health care because of the enormous price of treating smoking-related illnesses. Call the tax a way of paying your fair share; something I thought you conservatives were all for. If you look at it for a moment you'll find an interesting paradox in the thinking of the cigarette tax. The government wants to tax cigarettes in order to pay for health care, and I have no doubt that they've already factored all of this "new" income into money that they'll have to dole out to those in need of health care. The problem is that if you tax cigarettes enough then people will quite and the income that you had planned on won't be there. So the next step is to tax them more, and then more people quit. I know that everyone won't quit, but at some point the damn things will cost more than the money that you'd be spending to get health care on your own in the first place! That example of course takes the argument to an absurd level, but you get the idea. What we currently have is a broken government. The great majority of the 535 congressmen need to be ran out of office and replaced with someone that actually reads the bills, pays attention and understands what's going on, and cares about something besides just power for the sake of power. In the last congress, Tom Coburn had a hold on a number of bills. Whether you're conservative or liberal you've got to admit (at least if you research it) that the government is much too large, much too instrusive, and has much more power than they should ever have. But then I'm holding out for "free" doggie day care!!!

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 6:54:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Tort reform would go a long way towards lowering American health care costs, there is no reason why an aspirin should cost $10.00! John Edwards is a prime example of an ambulance chasing shyster Democrat lawyer who has gotten rich through driving the cost of American medical care through the roof. There are other common sense reforms well short of total communism that are perfectly capable of lowering health care costs so that they are more affordable for the average hard working person. Well, I agree, and one of those would be a single-payer health care system, similar to what we already have with Medicare, in which people have the option of purchasing supplemental coverage if they wish it and can afford it. How does that constitute "total communism?" And please don't get me started on that two-faced, rat bastard, ambulance-chasing piece of shit John Edwards. I loathe the sonofabitch even more than you do. But what does an ambulance-chasing slimeball have to do with health care reform? I'm trying to figure out how you're trying to connect the two issues, other than that Edwards is a democrat and democrats are the ones fighting for health care reform. But even at that, I can't figure out the relevance of the connection.

Sanity -> RE: Health measures in stimulus package (2/11/2009 7:18:56 PM)
Good post, and welcome to the boards. Something else that is baffling is that there is no realization on the part of our friends on the far, far left that this has been tried before - during prohibition, with alcohol. Bootleg cigarettes are making their way into our prisons, stuffed up people's asses. What makes the great Obama think we can't get them out here? And what about the war on drugs... doesn't the left typically refer to that as a failure? How can they possibly reconcile their two polar opposite positions. Fact is they can't. quote: ORIGINAL: HotWheelz If you look at it for a moment you'll find an interesting paradox in the thinking of the cigarette tax. The government wants to tax cigarettes in order to pay for health care, and I have no doubt that they've already factored all of this "new" income into money that they'll have to dole out to those in need of health care. The problem is that if you tax cigarettes enough then people will quite and the income that you had planned on won't be there. So the next step is to tax them more, and then more people quit. I know that everyone won't quit, but at some point the damn things will cost more than the money that you'd be spending to get health care on your own in the first place! That example of course takes the argument to an absurd level, but you get the idea. What we currently have is a broken government. The great majority of the 535 congressmen need to be ran out of office and replaced with someone that actually reads the bills, pays attention and understands what's going on, and cares about something besides just power for the sake of power. In the last congress, Tom Coburn had a hold on a number of bills. Whether you're conservative or liberal you've got to admit (at least if you research it) that the government is much too large, much too instrusive, and has much more power than they should ever have. But then I'm holding out for "free" doggie day care!!!

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875