RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)"

RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic [sm=rofl.gif] The conservative victim mentality. I love it, RML. If you are going to spout horseshit, by all means, go big. Says the guy who thinks the white house is asking all loyal citizens of the Fatherland to report their family members to the Ministry of State Security for disagreeing with Obama....

Arpig -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:23:04 PM)
quote: In that scenario (because no one has to work), eventually there won't be enough "stuff" to go around, and "free" health care is just one more step in that direction, and it will have to be rationed. But it is already being rationed. It is insurance company employees (and not even very high up ones at that) who are making the decisions at the present time. Employees with no medical training. Would it not be better to have those sorts of decisions made by a panel with medical experience? And if single-payer will inevitably lead to worse rationing than exists at present, then kindly explain why there is no real rationing problem in those countries with single-payer systems?

TheHeretic -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:25:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic [sm=rofl.gif] The conservative victim mentality. I love it, RML. If you are going to spout horseshit, by all means, go big. Says the guy who thinks the white house is asking all loyal citizens of the Fatherland to report their family members to the Ministry of State Security for disagreeing with Obama.... We certainly can't rely on the left to holler about these things for a few years, can we Panda? [;)]

rulemylife -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic [sm=rofl.gif] The conservative victim mentality. I love it, RML. If you are going to spout horseshit, by all means, go big. I'm glad you enjoyed it. You were one of the ones I had especially in mind.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Either she is too stupid to understand what she is saying is not true, or she is pandering to those too stupid to recognize it is not true. I'd suggest it's an "and" thing. Not an "either, or" thing.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity "free" health care is just one more step in that direction, and it will have to be rationed. Hey Panda....is this along the lines of what you meant when you said this?: quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda That's what it almost always comes down to when you're dealing with today's republican party - the question of whether they're lying, or just too stupid to know what they're talking about. Either way, it all comes out the same. You can't take them seriously. I haven't read the full 1,000-page bill, but I'm "pretty sure" the system simply makes people have insurance and makes the insurance carries accept people despite ppre-existing conditions. I don't believe it makes healthcare free to all. But yet, in typical right-wing fear-mongering, we have the post I quoted from 'you-know-who.' [8\|]

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So, if we can find prettier names for what's done, it will be acceptable? Kind of like the difference between killing babies and aborting fetuses? Here's more evidence of your 'not getting it.' Killing babies isn't the same as aborting fetuses. It's not simply a difference in name.

Arpig -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:33:12 PM)
quote: And when some future Obamacare bureaucrat tells you you're out of luck, where do you go to complain. To the government? I don't think so! OK I simply have to step in again. There is no requirement for any bureaucrat to be making any decisions on my care. The way it works in Canada is a panel that includes doctors, nurses, and government bean counters decides what things will be covered and at what cost. Once that is decided, the government's part is simply to pay when billed. This is no different from what happens in every insurance company in the US,except for the part of the medical professionals having the major say in what is to be covered rather than the bean counters. And if you are denied care that is covered,you can indeed take the government insurance plan to court.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:36:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Why do we even have to argue that. Are you really trying to say that if she mentions a family member it should be alright to level the nastiest personal attacks imaginable against them? Here we have more of your mis-understanding. The 'problem' is not the attacks. The problem is she's allowing for herself what she won't allow for others. In her mind it's 'ok' to trot out her downs kid to win sympathy for her lies. But it's not ok during the election to question her morals based on the fact that one of her unwed teen daughters was pregnant while still in high school.

Arpig -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:40:18 PM)
quote: In her mind it's 'ok' to trot out her downs kid to win sympathy for her lies. But it's not ok during the election to question her morals based on the fact that one of her unwed teen daughters was pregnant while still in high school. Well, she does have a point. What does a teenage daughter getting knocked up have to do with the mother's morals? Surely you are familiar with the concept of teenagers doing shit their parents tell them not to do.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:41:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig OK I simply have to step in again. There is no requirement for any bureaucrat to be making any decisions on my care. The way it works in Canada is a panel that includes doctors, nurses, and government bean counters decides what things will be covered and at what cost. Once that is decided, the government's part is simply to pay when billed. This is no different from what happens in every insurance company in the US,except for the part of the medical professionals having the major say in what is to be covered rather than the bean counters. And if you are denied care that is covered,you can indeed take the government insurance plan to court. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=thanks.gif] I love it when someone living under the type of system we're trying to implement comes to set the record straight about how it works. Death panel my ass. Does the bitch mean death panel like the insurance guy here who paid for a deaf kid's inner-ear implants but wouldn't foot the bill for the hearing aid? "That" kinda 'death panel?' Oops....too late.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:44:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Well, she does have a point. What does a teenage daughter getting knocked up have to do with the mother's morals? Surely you are familiar with the concept of teenagers doing shit their parents tell them not to do. Yes, but the antics of their offspring has long been political fodder, or at least potential for embarrassment of the politician. How can she stand up and preach that 'abstinence is the only way' when she can't even convince her own family? Her position (and much of the right's position) on sex ed has been that abstinence should be all that's taught. So that when the young ones go against 'what the parents teach' they have no knowledge of birth control, condoms, std's, etc. Teaching 'more' than just abstinence allowed the young ones to choose for themselves when they can't control their hormones any longer (which is often the case). Teaching only abstinence implies that every young one will magically decide abstinence is best and that will be that. But history often shows us otherwise.

slvemike4u -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 1:56:32 PM)
"killing babies"...Really Sanity? "death panels"....really Sarah? How can anyone engage in intelligent discourse on public policy when one side chooses language such as this? Of course "intelligent discourse" and Sarah Palin ...should not be mentioned in the same breath. As far as our very own Sanity.......the less said ,by me....the better.

Arpig -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:08:17 PM)
quote: Yes, but the antics of their offspring has long been political fodder, or at least potential for embarrassment of the politician. Granted, no debate from me on that point. quote: How can she stand up and preach that 'abstinence is the only way' when she can't even convince her own family? Simple, she can stand up and preach it because she believes it. The fact that her daughter chose to disregard her teachings is in noway relevant. Assume you are opposed to the recreational use of heroin, and one of your kids becomes a junkie....does that mean you are some sort of hypocrite? That you should now support the recreational use of heroin? No,of course not. So why the double standard. quote: Her position (and much of the right's position) on sex ed has been that abstinence should be all that's taught. So that when the young ones go against 'what the parents teach' they have no knowledge of birth control, condoms, std's, etc. Teaching 'more' than just abstinence allowed the young ones to choose for themselves when they can't control their hormones any longer (which is often the case). Teaching only abstinence implies that every young one will magically decide abstinence is best and that will be that. But history often shows us otherwise. Here I agree with you, she, along with those on the right who agree with her, are wrong on this issue.

FirmhandKY -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic [sm=rofl.gif] The conservative victim mentality. I love it, RML. If you are going to spout horseshit, by all means, go big. The bigger the lie, the apt people are to believe it. Pretty soon, black will be white, and wet will be dry. Firm

Sanity -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:38:21 PM)
The problem here is, the deficit. Financially, the United States is on a runaway train headed over a cliff. We can't pay for the social programs we have now, Social Security and Medicare are fast running out of money, and this vast new entitlement initiative will just be adding more fuel to the fire without finding any realistic kind of a way to pay for it all. That's why I'm saying that after everyone is on Obama's single payer system, the sacrifices that will potentially have to be made in order to keep it going are dreadful to have to consider. We can't pay for the programs we have now, and so its really the wrong time to be adding any more to the problem. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: And when some future Obamacare bureaucrat tells you you're out of luck, where do you go to complain. To the government? I don't think so! OK I simply have to step in again. There is no requirement for any bureaucrat to be making any decisions on my care. The way it works in Canada is a panel that includes doctors, nurses, and government bean counters decides what things will be covered and at what cost. Once that is decided, the government's part is simply to pay when billed. This is no different from what happens in every insurance company in the US,except for the part of the medical professionals having the major say in what is to be covered rather than the bean counters. And if you are denied care that is covered,you can indeed take the government insurance plan to court.

Loki45 -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:39:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Simple, she can stand up and preach it because she believes it. She believes it despite medical and societal evidence to the contrary. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig The fact that her daughter chose to disregard her teachings is in noway relevant. So why the double standard. It's not a double standard. And you said it yourself (along with my reply above) she believes in it despite the evidence to the contrary. She believes it despite the evidence in her own house that it doesn't work. I wonder if her daughter would be knocked up if she'd taken the time to explain condoms to her. quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Assume you are opposed to the recreational use of heroin, and one of your kids becomes a junkie....does that mean you are some sort of hypocrite? That you should now support the recreational use of heroin? This is apples and oranges. She's not just 'for abstinence,' she's for teaching it over and instead of anything else. And she has an example in her own home about why that doesn't work. You can 'suggest' abstinence and you can harp on it all you like, but if you don't teach kids the 'other ways' of preventing pregnancy when they have sex.....they won't be preventing pregnancy......they'll just be having sex. Her daughter is a living example of why her approach to sex education doesn't work. She (presumably) taught and preached only abstinence in her home. So when her daughter made the choice to have sex anyway (as teens often do) she didn't know about how to prevent pregnancy and viola....pregnant. That, to me, is irrefutable proof that her way doesn't work. And that just makes her look more and more stupid.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:52:53 PM)
quote: So, if we can find prettier names for what's done, it will be acceptable? Kind of like the difference between killing babies and aborting fetuses? ORIGINAL: Sanity Ok, Sanity, let's take this a point at a time. 1) There is a big difference between killing a baby, which is an autonomous, individual person, albeit a young one and terminating a fetus, which is a potential human being but not quite there yet. I know you like the idea of painting all pro choice people as baby killers but it aint so, Joe. 2) As for death panels, all Obama was bring up the fact that a huge portion of health care costs go to those in the last three months of their lives. This is something to talk about. At the very least it should be mentioned. Personally, I think that keeping someone alive as long as modern technology allows is neither the wisest, kindest or most ethical course. Hell, we treat our cocker spaniels better than we treat our dying people and part of it is that no one can talk about the subject without being labeled a death dealer. 3) There is already a system of "Death Panels" in place. They belong to private insurance companies who make their money by denying as many claims as possible in order to keep as much money as possible. In fact, ask the unfortunately huge group of the insured who have had their insurance denied or cancelled at the first sign of illness if there are "death panels". 4) As for Palin, accepting her as any kind of expert on any kind of political subject is like accepting Fred Flinstone as a factual source about prehistoric life and conditions. Yabba Dabba Doo.

Arpig -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 2:54:59 PM)
quote: The problem here is, the deficit. Financially, the United States is on a runaway train headed over a cliff. We can't pay for the social programs we have now, Social Security and Medicare are fast running out of money, and this vast new entitlement initiative will just be adding more fuel to the fire without finding any realistic kind of a way to pay for it all. That's why I'm saying that after everyone is on Obama's single payer system, the sacrifices that will potentially have to be made in order to keep it going are dreadful to have to consider. We can't pay for the programs we have now, and so its really the wrong time to be adding any more to the problem. Well, if Obama and the Dems in Congress had the balls to do what they should (government single-payer system) then everybody would suddenly not have to pay the $100-$500 (or more) every month, and businesses would no longer have to pay whatever it is they pay per employee per month. All of a sudden there is a fuck of a lot of money available to pay the premiums for the government run health insurance. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that the costs will not have to be paid, but just imagine what a great group plan you would have if it had 300+ million members...that is what single-payer is, it is health insurance, just like what you have now, only cheaper overall. Single-payer will save everybody in the US money in the long run. It has done so in every country where it has been instituted, so there is no reason to believe it will not do so in the US.

Sanity -> RE: "Leave My Family Out Of It (Except When I Want To Use Them)" (8/9/2009 3:03:53 PM)
Arpig, the projections from the White House and the Congressional Budget Office ten years out predict massive spending increases for the proposals that are on the table, adding between a trillion and a half to two trillion to the deficit ten years out. And we're already broke... And Washington never comes in under budget on anything, there are always massive cost overruns. How is Canada's national treasury doing of late. Any cuts upcoming to spending up your way? I understand that Great Britain as a whole is suffering, as are many other countries. When I hear things like, all the OTHER civilized countries have nationalized health care, I can't help but wonder what if their futures look like. If their futures don't look a lot like present day Cuba. I wonder now, if OURS doesn't.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875