Dissent is no longer the New Patriotism.

[fly on the wall]

I'd just gotten used to Dissent being the New Patriotism when low and behold Dissent is no longer the New Patriotism. I'm really pissed about all this as I am always the last to be notified.

Stop dissenting everybody, don't you know you're a traitor if you do? You're probably a terrorist if you keep on dissenting.

Everybody get in line and do the hokey pokey as the leader announces the steps like when you were in first grade.

You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out.

That's it. Just your left foot.

That's what it's all about.

[howyadoin]

Does bringing automatic rifles to town meetings count as dissent, or are you just talking about wearing anti-government t-shirts?

[Chris N]

Not sure, but I know pro-Obama T-shirts count as anti-government.

[rick]

Geez bug, when did you decide to stop being any fun?

All you do these days is whine about politics.

[Donald M.]

Geez bug, when did you decide to stop being any fun?

All you do these days is whine about politics.

Maybe they've changed his meds.

Anti-fun pills are anti-fun.

[fly on the wall]

Geez bug, when did you decide to stop being any fun?

All you do these days is whine about politics.

I must have really touched on a sore spot with rick.

Sorry, I'll try to be more gentle in the future but when you really get down to it this thread only vaguely implies politics. It's really you that sees it that way.
I could have been talking about turnip farming being the new patriotism, couldn't I have.

[howyadoin]

I could have been talking about turnip farming being the new patriotism, couldn't I have.Long as it ended in a bad pun, it'd be more entertaining than this thread.

[rick]

I must have really touched on a sore spot with rick.

Sorry, I'll try to be more gentle in the future but when you really get down to it this thread only vaguely implies politics. It's really you that sees it that way.
I could have been talking about turnip farming being the new patriotism, couldn't I have.


You just used to be more entertaining than this.

Dance monkey, dance!!!!

And leave my sore spot alone, all that cheating got me herpes and this current flare up is a real bitch.

[Donald M.]

I must have really touched on a sore spot with rick.

Sorry, I'll try to be more gentle in the future but when you really get down to it this thread only vaguely implies politics. It's really you that sees it that way.
I could have been talking about turnip farming being the new patriotism, couldn't I have.

Sure, why not.

Anyway, dissent's was never the new patriotism. Dissent is the old patriotism, only not really.

Unwavering loyalty to God and country is also the old patriotism, only yes really.

Many of the people who are vocally trashing Obama are the same ones that called anyone who criticized Bush a traitor.

The irony is lost on them.

[Cayman]

Dissent is healthy but it's depressing how much of the current uproar is based on incorrect and/or falsified information.

[Fenris]

Long as it ended in a bad pun, it'd be more entertaining than this thread.

Something about people catching dysentery, perhaps?

And a long post about how Fly went to work this morning, dissected pigs for a while, then fell through a dimensional portal to an alternate Earth where Rush Limbaugh was President and pushing for health care reform, while Barack Obama was organizing the political resistance on behalf of the insurance companies.

Or something like that. Fly's brilliance was always about narrative, more than political commentary, I have to agree.

õ
Poor Fly, so burdened with expectations!

[RolandJP]

I'd just gotten used to Dissent being the New Patriotism when low and behold Dissent is no longer the New Patriotism. I'm really pissed about all this as I am always the last to be notified.

Stop dissenting everybody, don't you know you're a traitor if you do? You're probably a terrorist if you keep on dissenting.

Everybody get in line and do the hokey pokey as the leader announces the steps like when you were in first grade.

You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out.

That's it. Just your left foot.

That's what it's all about.

Being Decent has always been unpatriotic.

[Ontir]

If youv'e got an actual opinion, that's based on something, and not just bigotry thinly veiled as dissent or opposition, that's fine. There's damn little of that. Most of it is just astoundingly obvious. If you don't like the current plan, please, by all means, come up with a counter proposal. I've yet to see much of anything on that front. What I have seen are a hell of a lot of lies, not even opinions, just lies.

[Cyke]

Dissent stopped being the New Patriotism when the phrase "You're either with us or against us" became pragmatic but official political discourse.

Dissent is healthy but it's depressing how much of the current uproar is based on incorrect and/or falsified information.

Additionally, when one is so insecure in their beliefs that they have to use outright lies, threats, deception, intimidation, and manipulation to make themselves heard, then there's a sign that something's wrong.

[Buried Alien]

Anti-fun pills are anti-fun.

Anti-Fun justifies his bitterness.

All is one in Flyseid.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[fly on the wall]

A great thread title like this and all I get is a tiny handfull of responses? What kind of board is this anyway these days?

Why do the liberals not rage?

Should I post another similar thread and maybe that one will be better recieved? I got another one planned out. Maybe the CBR masses will like it better. It's on the same subject.

I will wait for your replies and post the new thread if CBRdom demands it. Or if no one much replies I will go read a book.

[jade_nova]

I think this all changed back in November when the liberals took over. Anyone in power will say that dissent is not patriotic.

[Ryan W]

Dissent is patriotic, but it's only effective if its well-spoken and not motivated by fear-mongering.

I'll be your liberal whiner any time. :smile:

[The Black Guardian]

I thought dissent was back in fashion. Back in 2002, it was almost punishable by death, but now it's alright.

[Nick Soapdish]

Fly's right.

Fearmongering is the New Patriotism.

[Fenris]

A great thread title like this and all I get is a tiny handfull of responses? What kind of board is this anyway these days?

Yeah, I know. It used to be that anything you posted had a decent chance of becoming a megathread. Of course, that's mainly because you were right in there, posting back at people as they answered.

Responses are not an entitlement.


Why do the liberals not rage?

Maybe if you referenced JFK Jr?


Should I post another similar thread and maybe that one will be better recieved? I got another one planned out. Maybe the CBR masses will like it better. It's on the same subject.

I will wait for your replies and post the new thread if CBRdom demands it. Or if no one much replies I will go read a book.

I am always glad to see you post, Fly. Although, recalling your posting style, I wonder what you're leading up to.

õ
And what's the book about?

[Sir Tim Drake]

The trouble is, most recent dissent is not real dissent. It's dissent which is deliberately manufactured and paid for by health insurance companies.

[FanLove4Blade]

I thought dissent was back in fashion. Back in 2002, it was almost punishable by death, .

just you had to watch it if you asked for French Fries instead of Freedom Fries. :tongue:

(oh GW Bush - you did crack me up at times ....and not in a good way. but in a 'i like to make fun of you way.)

[Arvandor]

[QUOTE=FanLove4Blade;9498301(oh GW Bush - you did crack me up at times ....and not in a good way. but in a 'i like to make fun of you way.)[/QUOTE]

I still chuckle over the time he criticised Russia for invading Georgia - saying that invading another country is a bad way to settle disputes.

[FanLove4Blade]

I still chuckle over the time he criticised Russia for invading Georgia - saying that invading another country is a bad way to settle disputes.

haha, yeah....classic ^^

i live in canada....actually saw an american man walk into a restaurant up here and order freedom fries....of course no one knew what the heck he was talking about....i was there and had to explain that he wanted french fries and what freedom fries actually meant.

like i said Oh bush ^^

[Ontir]

Fly's right.

Fearmongering is the New Patriotism.

...of those who insist the President isn't a citizen, and that he's the reincarnation of Hitler, trying to undermine all that's good and holy by getting health care for everyone.

[Kid Omega]

False equivalency, fly.

Shitty, topic, shitty thread. You blew it. Epic fail.

Try harder,

Have some dignity,

[Kid Omega]

haha, yeah....classic ^^

i live in canada....actually saw an american man walk into a restaurant up here and order freedom fries....of course no one knew what the heck he was talking about....i was there and had to explain that he wanted french fries and what freedom fries actually meant.

like i said Oh bush ^^

I call bullshit on your anecdote.

[Ontir]

I think that was sarcasm, Kid.

[Radioactive Zombie]

You, sir, are a bitter, bitter neocon. Please wallow in filth for the rest of eternity!!!!

[The Black Guardian]

just you had to watch it if you asked for French Fries instead of Freedom Fries. :tongue:

(oh GW Bush - you did crack me up at times ....and not in a good way. but in a 'i like to make fun of you way.)
I remember getting accosted back in 2002 for not putting one of those stupid flags on my car. A lady at Wal-Mart was giving them away, and I turned her down. She chased me back to my car, accusing me of being Al Qaeda (I do look very Arab). Some freaking scary ****.

[Chris N]

I remember getting accosted back in 2002 for not putting one of those stupid flags on my car. A lady at Wal-Mart was giving them away, and I turned her down. She chased me back to my car, accusing me of being Al Qaeda (I do look very Arab). Some freaking scary ****.

Maybe she didn't hear the song.

Well, I got my window shield so filled
With flags I couldn't see.
So, I ran the car upside a curb
And right into a tree.
By the time they got a doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standing in the Pearly Gates said...

"But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
We're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more."

[Paradox]

The little black fly waited patiently by the computer screen.

"Where are they?", he railed at no one in particular, "I put up a post! It had everything! Politics, social commentary, puns, even the damn hokey pokey! What's happened to CBR? I was once their mentor, their leader...dare I say it, yes I do...their GOD! And what do I get in return now? A pittance. A few paltry posts, and most of them daring to be critical and tell me I'm...NOT...FUNNY???"

The fly knew the worm had turned. All these steaming liberals had their man in the Big White House now. It had turned them cocky and mean. Mean as snakes. All fly had done was point out a tiny bit of hypocrisy and it was torch and pitchfork time.

He couldn't kill pigs any more to release his rage. He couldn't get rid of his wife. The house was overrun with cats. And now this. Even CBR was turning on him,

"Why have you foresaken me?" the fly screamed at the monitor. He could imagine it now. If he went further, he was likely to get crucified. Of course, since he had six legs, it would have to be a Greek Orthodox Cross with the extra crossbar. He would hang there and perish, but none of THESE ingrates would be likely to pull him down. And he surely wouldn't have time to rise in three days. The average lifespan of a fly was only 10-25 days, and fly was already old. Older than these liberal punks, that's for sure.

The fly shook a tiny limb at the sky in anger. Punks is right! He would have his revenge!

"Crucify me, will you?" fly rubbed his tiny hands together in a mad scientist fashion, "This fly won't be going gentle into that good night. Or a bad night, for that matter. Or on Nightline (I just hate the format...I mean, really, give someone time to talk without interruptions). They'll rue the day! Rue, I tell you! You smug liberals! You elitist lefties! You think that because you've won, that you've WON! But I won't be giving in! I won't give you a moment of peace! I'm a real American! And you STINK! And by all that's holy, de scent is NOT the new patriotism!"

[howyadoin]

"Why have you foresaken me?" the fly screamed at the monitor. He could imagine it now. If he went further, he was likely to get crucified. Of course, since he had six legs, it would have to be a Greek Orthodox Cross with the extra crossbar.Okay, that was a nice touch.

[rick]

Okay, that was a nice touch.

That really did make the whole post didn't it?

[Buried Alien]

The little black fly waited patiently by the computer screen.

"Where are they?", he railed at no one in particular, "I put up a post! It had everything! Politics, social commentary, puns, even the damn hokey pokey! What's happened to CBR? I was once their mentor, their leader...dare I say it, yes I do...their GOD! And what do I get in return now? A pittance. A few paltry posts, and most of them daring to be critical and tell me I'm...NOT...FUNNY???"



Let me use a pop music analogy: by the time we got to the second half of the 1980s, even Paul McCartney stopped making the top of the pop charts with his new records.

Doesn't make him any less a living legend, but nobody should expect Sir Paul's new singles to jockey for chart position with Lady Gaga and Beyonce's newest records.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Acecool]

I'd just gotten used to Dissent being the New Patriotism when low and behold Dissent is no longer the New Patriotism. I'm really pissed about all this as I am always the last to be notified.

Stop dissenting everybody, don't you know you're a traitor if you do? You're probably a terrorist if you keep on dissenting.

Everybody get in line and do the hokey pokey as the leader announces the steps like when you were in first grade.

You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out.

That's it. Just your left foot.

That's what it's all about.

Please dissent has been unpatriotic for about 8.5 years. At least the people in power now don't designate free speech zones. :rolleyes:

[MacQuarrie]

I'll play.

Descent is the new Patriotism. How low can you go?

[StoneGold]

I'll play.

Descent is the new Patriotism. How low can you go?

http://gamasutra.com/features/20060428/descent.jpg

[FanLove4Blade]

I call bullshit on your anecdote.

And fuck you for even trying to pass that off as real. Seriously.

it was real. Not BS. I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't. It happened.

I remember getting accosted back in 2002 for not putting one of those stupid flags on my car. A lady at Wal-Mart was giving them away, and I turned her down. She chased me back to my car, accusing me of being Al Qaeda (I do look very Arab). Some freaking scary ****.

wow. shit, that is scary.

that reminds me.....a lot of people really thought those things about arabs and such....they really didnt know about islam...and that reminds me about reading about karl marx in history class.....he said that governments play off of people's innocence and lack of knowledge. They use it to their advantage. People don't think much of marx or communism...but i canj't help but think manyof the stuff he said is true even today. The bush administration using this fear of the american people, that many dont know about islam, and were afraid after 9/11, is one example. Another example of it happened in our canadian government when our prime minister Harper accused the opposition of trying to start a coup against the government...how many people actually know what a coup d'etat really is. He is using the fact that a lot of people don't know its true definition so he can stay in power (his government is a minority one not a majority)

sad really I heard of the hate crimes against arabs and islamic people and arab looking people that happened after 9/11.
__________________

[fly on the wall]

it was real. Not BS. I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't. It happened.





wow. shit, that is scary.

that reminds me.....a lot of people really thought those things about arabs and such....they really didnt know about islam...and that reminds me about reading about karl marx in history class.....he said that governments play off of people's innocence and lack of knowledge. They use it to their advantage. People don't think much of marx or communism...but i canj't help but think manyof the stuff he said is true even today. The bush administration using this fear of the american people, that many dont know about islam, and were afraid after 9/11, is one example. Another example of it happened in our canadian government when our prime minister Harper accused the opposition of trying to start a coup against the government...how many people actually know what a coup d'etat really is. He is using the fact that a lot of people don't know its true definition so he can stay in power (his government is a minority one not a majority)

sad really I heard of the hate crimes against arabs and islamic people and arab looking people that happened after 9/11.
__________________

I have to have some sympathy for the things you say here. Fanaticism and intolerance for those that have different opinions than we do, or to people we just imagine as having different opinions as we do, these things are wrong. We should be trying to make friends with the people of Islam, not go out of our way to make enemies of them.

We should tolerate and even celebrate people who see things differently than we do, not attack them and demonize them. But everyone likes a brawl so things are unlikely to change.

And many things that Marx said do resonate with us however Marx's golden rule, while beautiful, remains Utopian and flawed. "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities." Sadly this beautiful sentiment doesn't happen in the real world. If you provide for every need the population goes limp and useless. And the people with all the abilities that provide for everyone else's needs want to be paid, or they won't do any providing.

That's the way it works in the real world.

[Arvandor]

We should tolerate and even celebrate people who see things differently than we do, not attack them and demonize them. But everyone likes a brawl so things are unlikely to change.

You talking about Islam, or the Comm forum, or maybe the internet in general?

[fly on the wall]

You talking about Islam, or the Comm forum, or maybe the internet in general?

The sentence was meant to apply to any time humans disagree with each other. I suppose that sentence was a bit Utopian.

[jesse_custer]

A great thread title like this and all I get is a tiny handfull of responses? What kind of board is this anyway these days?

A discriminatory one, obviously.

[FanLove4Blade]

The sentence was meant to apply to any time humans disagree with each other. I suppose that sentence was a bit Utopian.

I like utopian. I'm a left winger, politically. But, as you said to me, its not the real world. And its not how the real world works and behaves.

[fly on the wall]

I remember getting accosted back in 2002 for not putting one of those stupid flags on my car. A lady at Wal-Mart was giving them away, and I turned her down. She chased me back to my car, accusing me of being Al Qaeda (I do look very Arab). Some freaking scary ****.

Wow! What a full blown nutcase that woman was; however, 9-11 did drive a lot of people crazy. I know it affected me, but it was like this happy little psychosis was everywhere in the months following 9-11.

But come clean with us Black Guardian, you weren't wearing a burkini were you?

[spoon_jenkins]

"To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities." Sadly this beautiful sentiment doesn't happen in the real world. If you provide for every need the population goes limp and useless. And the people with all the abilities that provide for everyone else's needs want to be paid, or they won't do any providing.

That's the way it works in the real world.
The terribly disappointing when facts and evidence get in the way of an ideological crusade. For instance, we know the teabagger slogan "Taxed Enough Already" is actually code for "when the country elects a Democrat, the results shouldn't count." You can't take them seriously, because the highest marginal tax rate now is relatively low compared to where it's been for most of the history of the federal income tax. But conservative politics nowadays aren't about thinking about the evidence; they're about feeling that some counterfactual is actually true.

Republican economist Arthur Laffer is the namesake of the Laffer Curve which proposes that when taxes reach a certain level, people will just work less. The problem with conservatives whining about this is that the empirical evidence shows that we are nowhere near that point. But the conservative approach is to ignore, or better yet demonize, actual expertise. Arthur Laffer symbolizes that cult of ignorance because he went on TV and actually implied that Medicare isn't a government program!

[jessecuster3]

For instance, we know the teabagger slogan "Taxed Enough Already" is actually code for "when the country elects a Democrat, the results shouldn't count."


I was under the impression that their slogan was "mmmmm, slurp, slurp mmmmm".

[howyadoin]

I was under the impression that their slogan was "mmmmm, slurp, slurp mmmmm".Or "gobble, gobble."

[GozertheGozarian]

Or "gobble, gobble."
I thought it was "rabble, rabble."

[Black Vespa]

If youv'e got an actual opinion, that's based on something, and not just bigotry thinly veiled as dissent or opposition, that's fine. There's damn little of that. Most of it is just astoundingly obvious. If you don't like the current plan, please, by all means, come up with a counter proposal. I've yet to see much of anything on that front. What I have seen are a hell of a lot of lies, not even opinions, just lies.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2520:


it's very plain and simple. we're fed up with private insurance, but many think that government-controlled health care would be worse. i'm not very much interested in handing my health care over to regulators / government. inept bastards. medicare, social security, veterans affairs health care....all shining examples of how well our affairs are handled when government's involved.....and that's in dealing w/ a much smaller percentage of the whole population. it's easy to see why most would be concerned.

[FanLove4Blade]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2520:


it's very plain and simple. we're fed up with private insurance, but many think that government-controlled health care would be worse. i'm not very much interested in handing my health care over to regulators / government. inept bastards. medicare, social security, veterans affairs health care....all shining examples of how well our affairs are handled when government's involved.....and that's in dealing w/ a much smaller percentage of the whole population. it's easy to see why most would be concerned.

i love the fact i live in a country with public health care. I'm a not rich university student, how would someone like me afford health care if we didnt have public. I love that i carry my very own MCP card (medic care plan) and love the fact that if i got sick i could get treated just the same as someone who is wealthy.

Of course public is not without its problems, like a longer waiting time, than private, but still, i think if you americans had it, you would like it mostly rather than dislike.

[howyadoin]

I thought it was "rabble, rabble."Yes, but with balls in their mouths.

[Paul McEnery]

I thought it was "rabble, rabble."

Well their face is a mess.

[LtMarvel]

I don't mind honest dissent; in fact I welcome it! I can't stand dishonest dissent (Death panels! Death books! They will kill your grandma!). That McCoy woman (that is the way it is pronounced, it's spelled with 8-10 letters) who created the death panel myth needs to go away!

The posers who bring their guns to the healthcare debate to show how important guns are...they need to go away, too. We remember what happens when one of you guys off the deep end.

Okay, fly, I know you are not one of the liars/posers. You wanna rumble over healthcare/cash for clunky fridges/etc...bring it!

I'll bring my "Killed seven with one blow" Tshirt!*




*that's a fairy tale reference, people! Do the google...

[Paul McEnery]

I'll bring my "Killed seven with one blow" Tshirt"...

Ah, but did you think it too many?

[FanLove4Blade]

I don't mind honest dissent; in fact I welcome it! I can't stand dishonest dissent (Death panels! Death books! They will kill your grandma!). That McCoy woman (that is the way it is pronounced, it's spelled with 8-10 letters) who created the death panel myth needs to go away!

The posers who bring their guns to the healthcare debate to show how important guns are...they need to go away, too. We remember what happens when one of you guys off the deep end.

Okay, fly, I know you are not one of the liars/posers. You wanna rumble over healthcare/cash for clunky fridges/etc...bring it!

I'll bring my "Killed seven with one blow" Tshirt!*




*that's a fairy tale reference, people! Do the google...

hah, don't need google to know where that saying comes from. when i was younger i was mad over fairy tales.

[MacQuarrie]

i love the fact i live in a country with public health care. I'm a not rich university student, how would someone like me afford health care if we didnt have public. I love that i carry my very own MCP card (medic care plan) and love the fact that if i got sick i could get treated just the same as someone who is wealthy.

Of course public is not without its problems, like a longer waiting time, than private, but still, i think if you americans had it, you would like it mostly rather than dislike.

I'm still trying to figure out why it has to be an either/or question. Why not both? Basic preventative medicine (checkups, screenings, immunizations, etc.) and catastrophic care (emergency, accident, serious illness) on a public plan, and if you have the money and desire, you can supplement it with private insurance or out-of-pocket for elective treatment and upgraded care, like if you want a private room or whatever.

Why not set up a non-profit system for routine care? Offer tuition-paid med school in exchange for contracting to work for the public system for X number of years after graduation. The opportunity to come out of med school debt-free would be pretty appealing.

Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing partisan dispute?

[Pól Rua]

I'm still trying to figure out why it has to be an either/or question. Why not both? Basic preventative medicine (checkups, screenings, immunizations, etc.) and catastrophic care (emergency, accident, serious illness) on a public plan, and if you have the money and desire, you can supplement it with private insurance or out-of-pocket for elective treatment and upgraded care, like if you want a private room or whatever.

Why not set up a non-profit system for routine care? Offer tuition-paid med school in exchange for contracting to work for the public system for X number of years after graduation. The opportunity to come out of med school debt-free would be pretty appealing.

Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing partisan dispute?

It doesn't, not even a little bit.
In Australia, we have public health care AND private health insurance.
And it works pretty much EXACTLY like the bolded bit.
Easy peasy.

[MacQuarrie]

It doesn't, not even a little bit.
In Australia, we have public health care AND private health insurance.
Basically, it's the difference between flying economy and flying business class. If you can't afford the extra, you can still get where you wanna go, but if you want to pay for a bit of additional luxury, you can.
Easy peasy.
It's amazing what you can get done if you aren't more interested in playing "red shirt/blue shirt."

[Pól Rua]

I was under the impression that their slogan was "mmmmm, slurp, slurp mmmmm".

Or "gobble, gobble."

I thought it was "rabble, rabble."

"robble robble"?
http://gothamist.com/attachments/jyhill/061809hamburglar.jpg

[Pól Rua]

It's amazing what you can get done if you aren't more interested in playing "red shirt/blue shirt."

Honestly, you'd think something as basic as the health and wellbeing of the general populous would be something you really couldn't argue against.

[Chris N]

Honestly, you'd think something as basic as the health and wellbeing of the general populous would be something you really couldn't argue against.

You'd think that if you're a fascist.

[FanLove4Blade]

I'm still trying to figure out why it has to be an either/or question. Why not both? Basic preventative medicine (checkups, screenings, immunizations, etc.) and catastrophic care (emergency, accident, serious illness) on a public plan, and if you have the money and desire, you can supplement it with private insurance or out-of-pocket for elective treatment and upgraded care, like if you want a private room or whatever.

Why not set up a non-profit system for routine care? Offer tuition-paid med school in exchange for contracting to work for the public system for X number of years after graduation. The opportunity to come out of med school debt-free would be pretty appealing.

Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing partisan dispute?

i guess it doesnt have to be all or nothing. we have public national health care and we also have private.

[mikekerr3]

It doesn't, not even a little bit.
In Australia, we have public health care AND private health insurance.
And it works pretty much EXACTLY like the bolded bit.
Easy peasy.

As an American whose wife received a pacemaker and who had pretty complicated medical problems myself while in South Australia , I can state the Aussie medical system works just fine. :biggrin:

[mikekerr3]

You'd think that if you're a fascist.

I think it's just more about power and greed not ideology, they mostly are not honest enough to work for an ideal.

[OzBat!]

But I won't be giving in! I won't give you a moment of peace! I'm a real American! And you STINK! And by all that's holy, de scent is NOT the new patriotism!"
*applauds*

That was so jaw-droppingly bad, it was brilliant!

[Paradox]

Thank you! It wouldn't be a fly pastiche (however pitifully and inappropriately short) without it ending in an awful shaggy dog pun! :biggrin:

[Spike-X]

If you provide for every need the population goes limp and useless.

Yes Fly, you're right of course. If you make it possible for poor, uninsured people to have access to basic health care without having to worry how they'll also be able to afford food that week (and maybe even lose their house if they have the poor judgement to come down with a major illness), the entire population will become limp and useless!

Just keep 'em too scared to ever get sick/injured. It's for their own good! Hell, if they really cared that much about about their own health, they'd be working three jobs instead of two. Then they wouldn't have time to get sick!

[MacQuarrie]

Honestly, you'd think something as basic as the health and wellbeing of the general populous would be something you really couldn't argue against.
I've had this memorized since fifth grade:

"We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can we get on with it, please?

(How many of you sang it when you read it? Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock.)

[Pól Rua]

"We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Common defense? Sounds more like 'Common-ism' to ME, you dirty Red!

[Michael P]

I've had this memorized since fifth grade:

"We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can we get on with it, please?

(How many of you sang it when you read it? Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock.)

Oh, is that where the song version came from?

[FanLove4Blade]

Yes Fly, you're right of course. If you make it possible for poor, uninsured people to have access to basic health care without having to worry how they'll also be able to afford food that week (and maybe even lose their house if they have the poor judgement to come down with a major illness), the entire population will become limp and useless!

Just keep 'em too scared to ever get sick/injured. It's for their own good! Hell, if they really cared that much about about their own health, they'd be working three jobs instead of two. Then they wouldn't have time to get sick!


stop making sense :tongue:

Fly I bet you don't really believe what you wrote. honestly. you really believe that the people who do have their needs met in our society became limp and useless?

[Valmore]

I've had this memorized since fifth grade:

"We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can we get on with it, please?

(How many of you sang it when you read it? Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock.)

Are you saying I'm getting screwed out of welfare checks?

[fly on the wall]

Yes Fly, you're right of course. If you make it possible for poor, uninsured people to have access to basic health care without having to worry how they'll also be able to afford food that week (and maybe even lose their house if they have the poor judgement to come down with a major illness), the entire population will become limp and useless!

Just keep 'em too scared to ever get sick/injured. It's for their own good! Hell, if they really cared that much about about their own health, they'd be working three jobs instead of two. Then they wouldn't have time to get sick!

Maybe there will be a government agency that will write my posts for me sense you think my posts are so bad.

I'm not saying that what I posted isn't open for criticism, obviously it is easy to criticize it. But years ago I wrote a story about a benign force that took over a town and also blocked the people from going in and out of the town. This benign force took care of all of the people's needs including protecting them from physical harm. Soon the children were jumping off high buildings because it was so much fun to slowly come down to a smooth and safe landing.

Not that that makes any sense but excuse me for having said the "limp" remark in the first place. The truth is that the National Health will most likely not work that well and people will still be dying from lack of medical care, but it will be a different set of people, not just poor people, so y'all will approve of it.

Right now about 80% of the people in this country have good health care. The National Health Care will make a much larger percentage of the people in this country have crappy health care. That's why people are pissed. They are selfishly pissed off that soon going to the doctors office will resemble going to the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are also selfishly pissed off because their taxes will have to be raised to over 50% to pay for all this. Perhaps taxes will go up to 90% or more for the top earners. Of course many people think that super high taxes for the rich are good since it makes everyone have about the same income.

The central tenet of the current administration seems to be that it is better for everyone to be equally miserable rather than most people being fairly happy. If you all think you are noble and doing a good thing well go ahead. Knock yourself out. Pardon me for being selfish. Also don't forget to give your own money to your poor friends to really prove your virtue, and get back to me about how well giving your money your poor friends worked out. I've done this and what happens is they blow the money and come back for more. It doesn't seem to help solve any of their problems, it just makes you poorer.

All the people in the room are getting tired of me posting instead of paying them attention, so I'll sign off.

[Paul McEnery]

Right now about 80% of the people in this country have good health care. .

And that's where you're completely wrong.

Because I've got insurance. And yes, I'm still unwilling to deal with the doctor because there's copays and deductibles, and those are beggaring in themselves. It's also perfectly obvious that the quality of the care is distorted because of liability issues, the ridiculous charges they can attach, and the lack of accountability to anyone but the insurance companies.

That's a completely dumb way to go about things.

But in any case, 80% is a fucking shit percentage, don't you think?

Oh, and piss off with saying National Healthcare would be shitty, because you're talking out of your arse.

I've had both, and the NHS was better. Just less pampery and ludicrously overpriced and exclusive.

[mikekerr3]

Right now about 80% of the people in this country have good health care. The National Health Care will make a much larger percentage of the people in this country have crappy health care. That's why people are pissed. They are selfishly pissed off that soon going to the doctors office will resemble going to the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are also selfishly pissed off because their taxes will have to be raised to over 50% to pay for all this. Perhaps taxes will go up to 90% or more for the top earners. Of course many people think that super high taxes for the rich are good since it makes everyone have about the same income.
.


Those assumption are pretty silly since they don't match the reality of what a NHS does, If NHS types services were generally crappy, the voters in Australia, Canada, France and every other industrialized nation would get rid of them.


Where exactly do theses crappy services operate, outside of places where the voter could take them apart?

I live in Delaware going to the DMV is both convenient and quick, registering a car takes 10-15 minutes so I don't see any problem with a system like that at all.:biggrin:

My primary medical care is from a single payer govermetn fundeed and free insurance policy, it called Tricare and I don't get any less service from them than my wife's Blue cross.

My other medical Coverage is from the VA, their admin staff is slow but the medical service has always been first rate.

Now please give us something that resembles a fact about why government funded insurance makes the medical system stop working. You need to stop listen to talking heads an do a little research on you own, NHS's in general are well liked and provide pretty good care to 100% of the population not just 80%

[Paul McEnery]

Those assumption are pretty silly since they don't match the reality of what a NHS does, If NHS types services were generally crappy, the voters in Australia, Canada, France and every other industrialized nation would get rid of them.


Where exactly do theses crappy services operate, outside of places where the voter could take them apart?

I live in Delaware going to the DMV is both convenient and quick, registering a car takes 10-15 minutes so I don't see any problem with a system like that at all.:biggrin:

My primary medical care is from a single payer govermetn fundeed and free insurance policy, it called Tricare and I don't get any less service from them than my wife's Blue cross.

My other medical Coverage is from the VA, their admin staff is slow but the medical service has always been first rate.

Now please give us something that resembles a fact about why government funded insurance makes the medical system stop working. You need to stop listen to talking heads an do a little research on you own, NHS's in general are well liked and provide pretty good care to 100% of the population not just 80%

That would be a slightly more temperate way to put it, yes.

Cheers.

[Spike-X]

But in any case, 80% is a fucking shit percentage, don't you think?


What, you don't think it's acceptable that sixty million people lack any kind of basic health care in the Greatest Country In The World™?

Socialist!

[Spike-X]

The National Health Care will make a much larger percentage of the people in this country have crappy health care. That's why people are pissed. They are selfishly pissed off that soon going to the doctors office will resemble going to the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are also selfishly pissed off because their taxes will have to be raised to over 50% to pay for all this.

Horseshit.

[mikekerr3]

No sense talking anymore he did what people like him do when faced with facts, he ran way:biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

What, you don't think it's acceptable that sixty million people lack any kind of basic health care in the Greatest Country In The World™?

Socialist!

You so missed your opportunity to call me Hitler.

[Ronald Bryan]

You so missed your opportunity to call me Hitler.
Why insult Hitler like that?

[Paul McEnery]

Why insult Hitler like that?

Because using an upside down cardboard box to go back and insult him to his face is probably a bit dangerous.

[Ronald Bryan]

Because using an upside down cardboard box to go back and insult him to his face is probably a bit dangerous.
An upside down bronze cardboard box.

[Nick Soapdish]

So people are pissed for completely made up reasons?

I already had that figured out. I saw the rants about the death panels and people ranting to keep government away from Medicare.

There are a lot of good questions about the health care bill. But they're being shouted down by the loonies and the media outlets have less of an interest in showing a civil discourse on health care. (Fox News actually cut away from one, promising to come back if it got ugly.)

And honestly, the DMV is a lot more efficient than the doctor's office. I started to complain about wait time, but the real annoyance seems to be when they're trying to work with the insurance company.

[Chris N]

stop making sense :tongue:

Fly I bet you don't really believe what you wrote. honestly. you really believe that the people who do have their needs met in our society became limp and useless?

There are lots of medications that make me go limp.

I was already useless though.

[fly on the wall]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)

I just wanted to get people to say, "Hey, we shouldn't make up little logic games where dissent is somehow deemed inappropriate." I've heard people saying just that, that dissent on the healthcare plans is inappropriate. I've heard Obama say that "the people who caused these problems should remain quiet" somehow blaming conservatives for the state of healthcare, but that's irrelevant, in a country with free speech no dissent is inappropriate. The only possible form of speech that is inappropriate would be what the president said, that some people should shut up. Wait a minute, I'm going to go one step further, even saying people should shut up is appropriate in it's own way. Because people should be able to say what they want.

But when anyone says anyone else should shut up, we should say that we disagree, and that's what I meant to say. Dissent is still the new patriotism and it will always be patriotic.

*cue patriotic anthem of your choice*

That being said, now is the time for the Democrats to move on National Health. They have secure and even impressive majorities in Congress, they have a radical President that thinks he's Lincoln, FDR and LBJ wrapped into one. They even have Sen. Kennedy as an instant healthcare Martyr, even though the guy really should have been removed from the public stage once he killed that girl.

If the Democrats can't get National Health passed now, when will they get it passed? It would be nice if someone in the legislative process had some experience in health insurance, but that can be helped. Some kind of National Health is bound to be passed.

So it seems a shame that the Republicans should have some say in the process since it is going to happen, some say in the process like making the inevitable bill isn't so awful. But the Republicans are unfortunately going to crawl up in a fetal ball and refuse to compromise.

It would be nice if that guy that runs Whole Foods couldn't have a hand in the National Health since he has the advantage of having not only run Whole Foods and a health insurance program. Pres. Obama, you might remember, has never run even a hot dog stand, not that he couldn't do a bang-up job of running a hot dog stand, if he were given a chance.

Another red badge of free speech courage that the liberals are currently wearing is the boycott of Whole Foods because their CEO had the nerve to state an opinion on health care. It's not a good idea to cow into submission people who actually have a working experience with health care if we are to solve our health care dilemma.

It seems silly that there is no way to give 15% of the population health insurance without revolutionizing the health care that the other 85% of the population overwhelmingly enjoys. It seems silly, but it's not silly, it's sort of what is going to happen.

Okay, I'm ready to get on board. Guarantee me a health plan as good as Medicare and I'm on your side. Frankly I've stayed in the job I have mainly because I needed to keep the health insurance going for me and my wife, both of us who have preexisting conditions (me-bipolar, her-cancer and diabetes). It would be nice to not have to feel like I had to keep working at a job I may not like anymore.

A lot of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of health insurance. But I still don't know how we are going to pay for Medicare for everyone since Medicare is presently going broke. I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it.

[Pól Rua]

A lot of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of health insurance. But I still don't know how we are going to pay for Medicare for everyone since Medicare is presently going broke. I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it.

The same way it's been working just fine for decades in Canada, the UK and Australia.

And no, there's no double standard. It's not a red vs blue thing. It's an information vs ignorance thing.
Waterboarding exists.
Death Panels don't.
Simple as that.

[Sabrinaset]

Now, now ... Disagreeing with the administration has been patriotic since sometime around 2006, I think. Who are we to call the Secretary of State a liar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0)

Why even back then, even Nancy Pelosi said she's a fan of disruptors! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3vauUPUAa0)

:wink:

[Pól Rua]

Now, now ... Disagreeing with the administration has been patriotic since sometime around 2006, I think. Who are we to call the Secretary of State a liar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0)

Why even back then, even Nancy Pelosi said she's a fan of disruptors! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3vauUPUAa0)

:wink:

Sometime well before 1776, I think you'll find...

[mikekerr3]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)

I just wanted to get people to say, "Hey, we shouldn't make up little logic games where dissent is somehow deemed inappropriate." I've heard people saying just that, that dissent on the healthcare plans is inappropriate. I've heard Obama say that "the people who caused these problems should remain quiet" somehow blaming conservatives for the state of healthcare, but that's irrelevant, in a country with free speech no dissent is inappropriate. The only possible form of speech that is inappropriate would be what the president said, that some people should shut up. Wait a minute, I'm going to go one step further, even saying people should shut up is appropriate in it's own way. Because people should be able to say what they want.

But when anyone says anyone else should shut up, we should say that we disagree, and that's what I meant to say. Dissent is still the new patriotism and it will always be patriotic.

*cue patriotic anthem of your choice*

That being said, now is the time for the Democrats to move on National Health. They have secure and even impressive majorities in Congress, they have a radical President that thinks he's Lincoln, FDR and LBJ wrapped into one. They even have Sen. Kennedy as an instant healthcare Martyr, even though the guy really should have been removed from the public stage once he killed that girl.

If the Democrats can't get National Health passed now, when will they get it passed? It would be nice if someone in the legislative process had some experience in health insurance, but that can be helped. Some kind of National Health is bound to be passed.

So it seems a shame that the Republicans should have some say in the process since it is going to happen, some say in the process like making the inevitable bill isn't so awful. But the Republicans are unfortunately going to crawl up in a fetal ball and refuse to compromise.

It would be nice if that guy that runs Whole Foods couldn't have a hand in the National Health since he has the advantage of having not only run Whole Foods and a health insurance program. Pres. Obama, you might remember, has never run even a hot dog stand, not that he couldn't do a bang-up job of running a hot dog stand, if he were given a chance.

Another red badge of free speech courage that the liberals are currently wearing is the boycott of Whole Foods because their CEO had the nerve to state an opinion on health care. It's not a good idea to cow into submission people who actually have a working experience with health care if we are to solve our health care dilemma.

It seems silly that there is no way to give 15% of the population health insurance without revolutionizing the health care that the other 85% of the population overwhelmingly enjoys. It seems silly, but it's not silly, it's sort of what is going to happen.

Okay, I'm ready to get on board. Guarantee me a health plan as good as Medicare and I'm on your side. Frankly I've stayed in the job I have mainly because I needed to keep the health insurance going for me and my wife, both of us who have preexisting conditions (me-bipolar, her-cancer and diabetes). It would be nice to not have to feel like I had to keep working at a job I may not like anymore.

A lot of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of health insurance. But I still don't know how we are going to pay for Medicare for everyone since Medicare is presently going broke. I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it.

Paying for it would just require raising taxes back to where they were when Reagan left office, that's a no brainier, or put them where thye were when Nixon left office and pay off the national debt in short order. the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world, it is u sustainably low IMO.

You didn't anaswer where the idea that NHS means loousy care, that's what really puzzles me. the facts don't back that up at all, it's in the same catagory as the lies about the VA "deathbook" pure fabrication to incite fear. I've been handed that pamphlet and Palin is simply either alying sack of shit or to stupid to be able to read it, her comments on it are pure fiction with no basis in reality.

We probably should not have jumped on you so hard, but the continuous blatant lies coming from many on your side have pissed a lot of us off. Parroting them tends to have the same effect.

I can also recommend using some facts that can be backed up, things like your comment about how bad government health care is, are provably wrong and don't help your case.

[Ontir]

I'm all for dissent.

The whole point of living in this country is that you're SUPPOSED to be able to speak your mind, though it's often not actually the case. I am tired of hearing empty sloganeering and re-treads of tired and antiquated lies with nothing resembling a fact attached to them. That's not dissent, that's just lying. Just like the Bush Administration lumping anyone who was against the war, despite actual information and a coherent reason not to war on a country that hadn't attacked us, in with the 9/11 terrorists.

My position on the war was backed up by a number of sources and a whole lot of information. I've yet to hear much of anything from pretty much anyone that amounts to anything more than empty slogans at best, to outright lies. If that's not you, that's cool. I'm eager to hear a well thought out contrary opinion AND a counter proposal. I've just not seen anyone come up with anything like that, thus far.

[Paradox]

Nick Soapdish sees through the smoke:

So people are pissed for completely made up reasons?

Yes .

[Paradox]

fly on the wall shows his colors:

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)

You're right, of course. Unfortunately, what the rabble-rousers at Fox (et al) are producing is not dissent. It's obfuscation.

[berk]

Paying for it would just require raising taxes back to where they were when Reagan left office, that's a no brainier, or put them where thye were when Nixon left office and pay off the national debt in short order. the US has one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world, it is u sustainably low IMO.Or just cut the defence budget by a few per cent.

[Ontir]

You're right, of course. Unfortunately, what the rabble-rousers at Fox (et al) are producing is not dissent. It's obfuscation.

I think it's just flat-out propaganda.

[Paul McEnery]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libst.

It might make you feel less miserable with your bipolar life to hide inside some ideological bullshit, but that ideological bullshit is taking away the right to LIFE for many people, including myself.

At which point, you can take your selfpity and shove it.

If you want people to cut you slack for your medical condition, the least you can fucking do is extend the same courtesy to everyone in the fucking country.

While we're at it, if people hadn't created programs to take care of the likes of you, and if people hadn't decided to care about the weaker people in the community as well as the strongest, you'd have died in the gutters years ago.

You felt like it was okay for you to ask people here to pray for your dad when he was dying. That's lovely, but bloody useless. We're asking for people to PAY for each other when we're sick, dying, and otherwise incapable of taking care of ourselves.

That actually works.

So knock it the fuck off.

[dupersuper]

Maybe she didn't hear the song.

Well, I got my window shield so filled
With flags I couldn't see.
So, I ran the car upside a curb
And right into a tree.
By the time they got a doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standing in the Pearly Gates said...

"But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
We're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more."

Classic, what's that from?

[mikekerr3]

Or just cut the defence budget by a few per cent.

The defense budget is not as large a part of the federal budjet as you imagine, A few percent wold do very little to help much. you pretty much would have to gut the defense budget and hiistorically that gets people killed as nut-bags tend to take advantge of the weakness. 1939 and 1950 are great examples of that.

Cutting military pay doesn't work either because you need to replace the guys that bail because they have families to feed, and most pro's have families. training is very damned expensive. Using draftee's just means you pay more just in death indemnity insurance.

There is a few percentage points of waste that could be cut but that would require that congress give up some of their pork, and neither party is willing to do that, look at what's happening now, even when the military wants to cut programs like the F-22 and the new self-propelled gun, congress critters swearing the nation is in peril, when it's only their donations that are at risk.

If you don't believe that a few percent wouldn't help much look up the numbers they are publicly available.

[mikekerr3]

I think it's just flat-out propaganda.

A shorter and more accurate word is, lies

[dupersuper]

Right now about 80% of the people in this country have good health care. The National Health Care will make a much larger percentage of the people in this country have crappy health care. That's why people are pissed. They are selfishly pissed off that soon going to the doctors office will resemble going to the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are also selfishly pissed off because their taxes will have to be raised to over 50% to pay for all this. Perhaps taxes will go up to 90% or more for the top earners. Of course many people think that super high taxes for the rich are good since it makes everyone have about the same income.
.

A) Isn't part of the point that many of those 80% will find out their care isn't as good as they expected once they actually need it?
B) Count me as another Canadian who can't believe there are so many Americans fighting this...even the most conservative Canadian politician wouldn't dare try to touch our health care
C) Where do you get those tax figures? Everything I've read/heard is raising it a couple % (higher into the 30's), if at all.
D) You DO realize how much crappy health care costs in the long run, right? poor health, lack of productivity, low quality of life, avoidable ER and other emergency costs...

[Paradox]

dupersuper wants a source:

Where do you get those tax figures?

Sphincter statistics.

Sigh...fly, you see what happens when you try to play it straight? You get away with a lot more if you're entertaining.

Dance, post monkey, dance!!!

[dupersuper]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)

I just wanted to get people to say, "Hey, we shouldn't make up little logic games where dissent is somehow deemed inappropriate." I've heard people saying just that, that dissent on the healthcare plans is inappropriate. I've heard Obama say that "the people who caused these problems should remain quiet" somehow blaming conservatives for the state of healthcare, but that's irrelevant, in a country with free speech no dissent is inappropriate. The only possible form of speech that is inappropriate would be what the president said, that some people should shut up. Wait a minute, I'm going to go one step further, even saying people should shut up is appropriate in it's own way. Because people should be able to say what they want.

But when anyone says anyone else should shut up, we should say that we disagree, and that's what I meant to say. Dissent is still the new patriotism and it will always be patriotic.

*cue patriotic anthem of your choice*

That being said, now is the time for the Democrats to move on National Health. They have secure and even impressive majorities in Congress, they have a radical President that thinks he's Lincoln, FDR and LBJ wrapped into one. They even have Sen. Kennedy as an instant healthcare Martyr, even though the guy really should have been removed from the public stage once he killed that girl.

If the Democrats can't get National Health passed now, when will they get it passed? It would be nice if someone in the legislative process had some experience in health insurance, but that can be helped. Some kind of National Health is bound to be passed.

So it seems a shame that the Republicans should have some say in the process since it is going to happen, some say in the process like making the inevitable bill isn't so awful. But the Republicans are unfortunately going to crawl up in a fetal ball and refuse to compromise.

It would be nice if that guy that runs Whole Foods couldn't have a hand in the National Health since he has the advantage of having not only run Whole Foods and a health insurance program. Pres. Obama, you might remember, has never run even a hot dog stand, not that he couldn't do a bang-up job of running a hot dog stand, if he were given a chance.

Another red badge of free speech courage that the liberals are currently wearing is the boycott of Whole Foods because their CEO had the nerve to state an opinion on health care. It's not a good idea to cow into submission people who actually have a working experience with health care if we are to solve our health care dilemma.

It seems silly that there is no way to give 15% of the population health insurance without revolutionizing the health care that the other 85% of the population overwhelmingly enjoys. It seems silly, but it's not silly, it's sort of what is going to happen.

Okay, I'm ready to get on board. Guarantee me a health plan as good as Medicare and I'm on your side. Frankly I've stayed in the job I have mainly because I needed to keep the health insurance going for me and my wife, both of us who have preexisting conditions (me-bipolar, her-cancer and diabetes). It would be nice to not have to feel like I had to keep working at a job I may not like anymore.

A lot of people are stuck in jobs they hate because of health insurance. But I still don't know how we are going to pay for Medicare for everyone since Medicare is presently going broke. I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it.

"Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War."
I have seen some left wing hypocrasy here, and I would therefore agree with this IF the people expressing dessent were complaining about ACTUAL parts of the proposed healthcare plans and not shouting things they heard on FOX news and bringing LOADED GUNS to political rallies (I'm sorry; the Secret Service should've locked those yahoos up, screw the right wing backlash).

"As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)."
Cool, I'm finally in the majority.

"*cue patriotic anthem of your choice*"
*cues "I Am an Englishman"* I know I'm Canadian, but that's just a catchy tune.

"If the Democrats can't get National Health passed now, when will they get it passed?"
Tell me about it. :frown:

"It seems silly that there is no way to give 15% of the population health insurance without revolutionizing the health care that the other 85% of the population overwhelmingly enjoys."
Wow, it was only 80% on your last post. Looks like health care is improving after all. :rolleyes:

"I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it."
From you mouth to dogs ear...

[dupersuper]

Or just cut the defence budget by a few per cent.

Yeah, just to see Fox commentaters heads explode. :smile:

[dupont2005]

not being an idiot is patriotic

[Iangould]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War.

I must have missed the bit where the anti-war protesters were carrying guns and calling for a revolution.

[Iangould]

Republican economist Arthur Laffer is the namesake of the Laffer Curve which proposes that when taxes reach a certain level, people will just work less. The problem with conservatives whining about this is that the empirical evidence shows that we are nowhere near that point. But the conservative approach is to ignore, or better yet demonize, actual expertise. Arthur Laffer symbolizes that cult of ignorance because he went on TV and actually implied that Medicare isn't a government program!

The thing that's gets me about Laffer is that US tax revenues went up when Bush 41 and Clinton raised tax rates and went down when Bush 43 cut tax rates.

That's simple empirical fact.

[Spike-X]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)


Seriously Fly, enough with the passive-aggressive, whiny 'poor me' horseshit.

People can dissent all they want on the subject, but when they have to make shit up in order to even have a reason to object to it, how seriously do you expect them to be taken?

I'm sure all you atheist libs have got a good explanation as to how we are going to pay for all this besides just saying that you want it.

Oh, people need to justify how your government is going to pay for something now? That sure wasn't the case when you Bible-thumping conservatives decided to invade a country that had never lifted a finger against yours, with a bunch of made-up bullshit used to justify it. Oh no, there was all the money in the world to throw around when you were dropping bombs on people in another country (and then turning around and paying Haliburton to rebuild it), but now all of a sudden when it comes to helping out people in your own country, you're worried about the cost?

Spare me.

[Spike-X]

The defense budget is not as large a part of the federal budjet as you imagine, A few percent wold do very little to help much. you pretty much would have to gut the defense budget and hiistorically that gets people killed as nut-bags tend to take advantge of the weakness. 1939 and 1950 are great examples of that.

Cutting military pay doesn't work either because you need to replace the guys that bail because they have families to feed, and most pro's have families. training is very damned expensive. Using draftee's just means you pay more just in death indemnity insurance.

There is a few percentage points of waste that could be cut but that would require that congress give up some of their pork, and neither party is willing to do that, look at what's happening now, even when the military wants to cut programs like the F-22 and the new self-propelled gun, congress critters swearing the nation is in peril, when it's only their donations that are at risk.

If you don't believe that a few percent wouldn't help much look up the numbers they are publicly available.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4967/outrageous.jpg

[Nick Soapdish]

Ya know, I've been thinking about this whole socialized medicine thing, and I didn't really expect I was gonna be dogpiled by a bunch of angry libs but that's what happened. All I set out to do was to get people to see that dissent is just as patriotic when it is about national health care as it is when it's about the Iraq War. As dog* is my witness, that's all I wanted to say. (*I say dog here instead of God so I won't offend the Atheist Majority of the boards, these days)

I just wanted to get people to say, "Hey, we shouldn't make up little logic games where dissent is somehow deemed inappropriate." I've heard people saying just that, that dissent on the healthcare plans is inappropriate. I've heard Obama say that "the people who caused these problems should remain quiet" somehow blaming conservatives for the state of healthcare, but that's irrelevant, in a country with free speech no dissent is inappropriate. The only possible form of speech that is inappropriate would be what the president said, that some people should shut up. Wait a minute, I'm going to go one step further, even saying people should shut up is appropriate in it's own way. Because people should be able to say what they want.

But when anyone says anyone else should shut up, we should say that we disagree, and that's what I meant to say. Dissent is still the new patriotism and it will always be patriotic.


Just to add to the points that you haven't bothered addressing ...

Dissent is fine. But what we have been complaining about at the town hall meetings isn't dissent. It's people bringing in pamphlets on how to disrupt the meetings and then shouting misinformation and preventing any real discussion.

If they don't think that what they have to say is worth discussing, why should I? They aren't trying discussion. They're trying to silence discussion and shouting down the people that dissent with them.

And the people that caused the problem (or at least worsened it) are the insurance companies and they have been helping orchestrate the protests, including handing out those pamphlets.

What you've been defending isn't dissent. It's fearmongering. There is a difference between the two.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Personally I do think theres a double standard at work here but why would that be surprising? Depending on your POV Bush-hitler associations where either honest or despicible. Depending on your POV Obama-hitler associations are either honest or despicable. When is community organising astroturfing? Depends on your POV and the cause. Should we speak ill of the dead? Depends on whether the decedent is one of yours or not. Humans are essentially tribal animals and politics reflects this.
It happened with pamphlets and newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Radio and TV in the 20th, and the internet in the 21st.
Welcome to humanity. Do as I say and not as I do is a universal creedo.

[Tom]

When is community organising astroturfing? Depends on your POV and the cause.

No it doesn't. Both terms are easily definable. We call community organizing a "grassroots" movement because it starts from the bottom and moves up, i.e., it's organized by individuals and gains support from the community. Astroturfing is called such because it dishonestly attempts to give the appearance of a grassroots movement but it's organized from the top down, i.e., by corporations, governments, and lobbyists in order to get the people to support the status quo.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

No it doesn't. Both terms are easily definable. We call community organizing a "grassroots" movement because it starts from the bottom and moves up, i.e., it's organized by individuals and gains support from the community. Astroturfing is called such because it dishonestly attempts to give the appearance of a grassroots movement but it's organized from the top down, i.e., by corporations, governments, and lobbyists in order to get the people to support the status quo.

So then who paid our presidents salary when he was organising? is that considered top-down or bottom up?
When members of acorn are paid to register new voters couldnt that be considered top-down?
The Nra is supported by many corporations yet has widespread support among many citizens at large? Is that top down or bottom up?
I personally dont think its nearly as clear-cut as you make it out to be, but thats just me. YMMV

[Tom]

I personally dont think its nearly as clear-cut as you make it out to be, but thats just me. YMMV

That's because you're deliberately attempting to blur the lines on clearly definable points to make your own position look more thoughtful.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

That's because you're deliberately attempting to blur the lines on clearly definable points to make your own position look more thoughtful.

No, I just dont think the lines are as clearly defined as you say. But again thats just my personal opinion. I would point out however that being a brand new poster, I dont see how you could possibly know me well enough to either assume or predict my motivations or intentions.

[Tom]

I don't have to know you. I only have to read your words and your stance of "everybody does it" and "it's all equal" while ignoring clearly defined concepts and realities is extraordinarily common in political discussions

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I don't have to know you. I only have to read your words and your stance of "everybody does it" and "it's all equal" while ignoring clearly defined concepts and realities is extraordinarily common in political discussions

So is the belief that the feces of ones own side has no odor. In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's. The desire to attribute everything good to ones own side, and everything evil to the other is also universal. Personally I dont think its as clear cut as you make it out to be, but since it seems that you want to make a fight of this Ill just leave it at that. Sorry we couldnt discuss this more amiably. Have a nice day.

[Tom]

In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's.

Ohmigod, what nonsense.

[Pól Rua]

In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's.

So when confronted with the fact that the side you choose to follow unquestioningly are quantifiably lying... you respond with something as feeble as "Yes, but what IS truth anyway...?"

That's awesome. That's like Clinton wanting a concrete definition of "is" or "did" or "the" or whatever the word was. Obfuscation far and above the call of duty.

And yes, I hope comparing you to Bill Clinton pissed you right off.

[Nick Soapdish]

So is the belief that the feces of ones own side has no odor. In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's. The desire to attribute everything good to ones own side, and everything evil to the other is also universal. Personally I dont think its as clear cut as you make it out to be, but since it seems that you want to make a fight of this Ill just leave it at that. Sorry we couldnt discuss this more amiably. Have a nice day.

If you'd read a few more of Tom's posts, you might have known that he hasn't been a big fan of Obama and has been critical of him, despite being a supporter.

There are probably some examples that are more of a mix of both. I don't think that you've done a good job of presenting any. The Astroturf organizations are usually heavily funded by corporations and lobbyists for a specific and fairly narrow goal. The counterexamples that you presented get relatively low funding from corporations or lobbyists for their goals and the goals are wide or more amorphous - such as voter registration.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

So when confronted with the fact that the side you choose to follow unquestioningly are quantifiably lying


Follow unquestionably? I dont follow anything unquestionably. I also disagree that either side is quantifyily lying. There are organised, corporate supported pushes both for and against healthcare reform.. Some of the town hall protestors are simply concerned citizens, some are probably organised, some may be being paid. However given the defintions presented above I fail to see how organising for america, or the SEIU can be considered "grassroots" movements. To me this whole debate reeks of "I know you are but what am I" politics. Personally I dont see a lick of difference between "organising" and "astroturfing" which is the only point I wanted to make. But hey thats just one deranged fanboy's opinion, you dont have to agree with it.

[Tom]

If you'd read a few more of Tom's posts, you might have known that he hasn't been a big fan of Obama and has been critical of him, despite being a supporter.

I wouldn't say that. I voted for him, after all. I've just been willing to criticize him more readily than some.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

If you'd read a few more of Tom's posts, you might have known that he hasn't been a big fan of Obama and has been critical of him, despite being a supporter.


Like I said Im brand new here.

There are probably some examples that are more of a mix of both. I don't think that you've done a good job of presenting any. The Astroturf organizations are usually heavily funded by corporations and lobbyists for a specific and fairly narrow goal.


I think the NRA meets that criteria.
So does the SEIU, and the other organisations I've mentioned, IMO.


The counterexamples that you presented get relatively low funding from corporations or lobbyists for their goals and the goals are wide or more amorphous - such as voter registration.
I beleive, allthough I may be wrong, that Acorn gets quite a bit of both corporate and government funding. My point was simply that based on the defintions Tom provided, unless its an all volunteer effort, someone is getting paid. That, to me, isnt enough to make something illegitimate.

Id also point out that the pro-reform side is being heavily funded by the pharma companies, while the anti is being heavily funded by the insurance companies. Which makes sense given the differing economic incentives of both industries.

[Nick Soapdish]

Follow unquestionably? I dont follow anything unquestionably. I also disagree that either side is quantifyily lying. There are organised, corporate supported pushes both for and against healthcare reform.. Some of the town hall protestors are simply concerned citizens, some are probably organised, some may be being paid. However given the defintions presented above I fail to see how organising for america, or the SEIU can be considered "grassroots" movements. To me this whole debate reeks of "I know you are but what am I" politics. Personally I dont see a lick of difference between "organising" and "astroturfing" which is the only point I wanted to make. But hey thats just one deranged fanboy's opinion, you dont have to agree with it.

You don't think that the claims about death panels, that taxes will rise above 50% (and 90% for the richest citizens). Gingrich defended the death panel by saying that "communal standards" is an ambiguous term and is very dangerous historically. However, "communal standards" isn't included in the bill either. Sarah Palin followed that up by saying a panel would be set up to decide whether her Down's syndrome baby would be allowed to live, based on level of productivity.

They've claimed that Stephen Hawking would never survive in a system like that of the British.

These claims are not remotely close to the truth.

Some of the town hall protesters are concerned individuals. But a lot of them are concerned because they've been lied to by Fox News and people like Sarah Palin. And some are concerned about other things, but they are usually getting shouted down by the others.

[Tom]

My point was simply that based on the defintions Tom provided, unless its an all volunteer effort, someone is getting paid. That, to me, isnt enough to make something illegitimate.


And that has absolutely nothing to do with the definitions I provided or the point I made.

[Nick Soapdish]

Like I said Im brand new here.


Then take your own advice.

I would point out however that being a brand new poster, I dont see how you could possibly know him well enough to either assume or predict his motivations or intentions.

[Pól Rua]

You don't think that the claims about death panels, that taxes will rise above 50% (and 90% for the richest citizens). Gingrich defended the death panel by saying that "communal standards" is an ambiguous term and is very dangerous historically. However, "communal standards" isn't included in the bill either. Sarah Palin followed that up by saying a panel would be set up to decide whether her Down's syndrome baby would be allowed to live, based on level of productivity.

They've claimed that Stephen Hawking would never survive in a system like that of the British.

These claims are not remotely close to the truth.

Some of the town hall protesters are concerned individuals. But a lot of them are concerned because they've been lied to by Fox News and people like Sarah Palin. And some are concerned about other things, but they are usually getting shouted down by the others.

See these things?
These are LIES. They are NOT TRUE. Quantifiably. Someone made them up KNOWING they were not true so that frightened people would believe them.
When people give credence to these lies with a bunch of semantic nonsense like "Well, what IS truth anyway?", that's not objectivity. It's obfuscation.
It's buying into the lie on the basis of partisan nonsense.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

You don't think that the claims about death panels, that taxes will rise above 50% (and 90% for the richest citizens).


I expect hyperbole and overexaggeration in politics. To me its no different than Pelosi saying that protestors are carrying swastika´s, or the hoopla about "armed white males" at presidential appearances.

Gingrich defended the death panel by saying that "communal standards" is an ambiguous term and is very dangerous historically. However, "communal standards" isn't included in the bill either. Sarah Palin followed that up by saying a panel would be set up to decide whether her Down's syndrome baby would be allowed to live, based on level of productivity.

Which is no more flagrant than the claim that republicans want people to die in the streets, or the idea that bush invaded Iraq to steal thier oil, or the idea that people who are uninsured cant get medical treatment today.



These claims are not remotely close to the truth.

Nor is the claim that the proposed reform will cost us nothing while at the same time increasing quality of and access to care. Very few if any of the claims made by politicians are very close to the truth.
Thier job is to tell you what you want to hear so you will vote for them. Period.


Some of the town hall protesters are concerned individuals. But a lot of them are concerned because they've been lied to by Fox News and people like Sarah Palin. And some are concerned about other things, but they are usually getting shouted down by the others.

Perhaps, but the other news networks do just as much lying, or advocacy journalism, or whatever you want to call it.

For example, on rationing. The right claims that a public option would require the government to ration care. This is true. The left claims that care is being rationed now, this is also true. Both sides however claim the other is lieing, or misinterperting, or doesnt understand whats really going on. The facts, as I see them, are that both sides have valid points, and valid argumentys, as well as invalid points and invalid arguments. Both have people advocated for them that are outright lying, or shding the truth, or engaging in hyperbole.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

See these things?
These are LIES. They are NOT TRUE. Quantifiably. Someone made them up KNOWING they were not true so that frightened people would believe them.
When people give credence to these lies with a bunch of semantic nonsense like "Well, what IS truth anyway?", that's not objectivity. It's obfuscation.It's buying into the lie on the basis of partisan nonsense.
And when precisely, did I do this?
Please quote me.

[Tom]

I expect hyperbole and overexaggeration in politics. To me its no different than Pelosi saying that protestors are carrying swastika´s, or the hoopla about "armed white males" at presidential appearances.


And here is a perfect example of why your stance is pointless. Protestors ARE carrying swastikas around and there ARE armed men showing up at presidential appearances. These are not examples of "hyperbole and overexaggeration" because they are OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

[Tom]

And another thing...


Which is no more flagrant than the claim that republicans want people to die in the streets,

... the idea that people who are uninsured cant get medical treatment today.

...Nor is the claim that the proposed reform will cost us nothing .


Who has made these claims?

[Pól Rua]

And when precisely, did I do this?
Please quote me.

In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's.
There.
The fact that you have decided to move the goalposts and change your position from 'There is not right or wrong' to 'everyone's wrong sometimes so nothing really means anything' doesn't change it.
It's a load of semantic horseshit.

I also disagree that either side is quantifyily lying.
When the claim is made that Stephen Hawking would not survive the British Healthcare system, that is a quantifiable lie.
Stephen Hawking, living in Britain, has QUANTIFIABLY survived the British Healthcare system.
Therefore that is a quantifiable lie.
QED.

[carabas]

In politics, more so than in anything else I think, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's.Oh for fuck's sake... It's bad enough when mindles fanboys dredge up this nonsens to defend the non-existant artisticam merits of the works of Loeb and Liefeld.

YES. Objectivity frelling exists. Especially in politicswher life or death decisions are made that will influence the rest of your life. Pick a side and live with it.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

There.
The fact that you have decided to move the goalposts and change your position from 'There is not right or wrong' to 'everyone's wrong sometimes so nothing really means anything' doesn't change it.
It's a load of semantic horseshit.

OK, I can see how you might have misinterperted that. In the text quoted I was referring to political policies. Not to the claims being made by those in favor of or opposition to those policies. I wasnt claiming that there is no such thing as an objectivly true claim, but that there was no objective right or wrong in terms of which policies were better.

[Pól Rua]

Oh for fuck's sake... It's bad enough when mindles fanboys dredge up this nonsens to defend the non-existant artisticam merits of the works of Loeb and Liefeld.

YES. Objectivity frelling exists. Especially in politicswher life or death decisions are made that will influence the rest of your life. Pick a side and live with it.

Or better yet, don't pick a side and make informed decisions based on actual evidence and judge things on merit.

[Pól Rua]

OK, I can see how you might have misinterperted that. In the text quoted I was referring to political policies. Not to the claims being made by those in favor of or opposition to those policies. I wasnt claiming that there is no such thing as an objectivly true claim, but that there was no objective right or wrong in terms of which policies were better.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand there they go again! Oooh, lookit 'em scoot!
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/polrua/stupid%20paint%20gags/goalposts.jpg

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

YES. Objectivity frelling exists. Especially in politicswher life or death decisions are made that will influence the rest of your life. Pick a side and live with it.

All policies have both benefits and drawbacks. Whether one is "better" or not depends on which you feel is more important. Take the current healthcare reform debate. If you personally value universal coverage over individual control, then a single payer system is better. However if you value the abillity to decide for yourself whether or not to seek care, or which treatment options are "worth it" then the current system is better. Neither is "objectively better than the other, each has subjective advantages based on your priorities. (BTW Im only using single payer as an example, Im aware there are no proposals for single payer coverage currently being discussed)

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand there they go again! Oooh, lookit 'em scoot!


Well it was nice trying to have a discussion with you. Have a good day.

[Tom]

All policies have both benefits and drawbacks. Whether one is "better" or not depends on which you feel is more important.

The Final Solution of the Third Reich
Apartheid
The Treatment of Native Americans
The Internment of Japanese Americans during World War II

I - and anyone with a basic understanding of history - could go on and on, providing examples of policies that were OBJECTIVELY bad.

This is why people are reacting so vehemently to your points. Because they deny basic reality in order to boister a point of view that pretends to be above partisanship.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

And here is a perfect example of why your stance is pointless. Protestors ARE carrying swastikas around and there ARE armed men showing up at presidential appearances. These are not examples of "hyperbole and overexaggeration" because they are OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

Not in the contex in which they were mentioned, no they are not. As an example, when NBC I think it was cropped video of a black man carrying a gun to an obama appearance as proof of "racial hatred edging on violance" or as an example of "angry white males" it was not objectively true. Nor was the context in which pelosi mentioned swastikas.

[Tom]

Not in the contex in which they were mentioned, no they are not. As an example, when NBC I think it was cropped video of a black man carrying a gun to an obama appearance as proof of "racial hatred edging on violance" or as an example of "angry white males" it was not objectively true. Nor was the context in which pelosi mentioned swastikas.

Pelosi's mention of swastikas was, and I quote, "They're carrying swastikas." An OBJECTIVELY true statement.

As for your other example, I have seen no news reports that claim only white males are carrying guns to these events. In fact, the footage of that black guy with the assault rifle was so ubiquitous on all the cable channels, that I doubt very much that what you're saying is true or accurate.

[Pól Rua]

All policies have both benefits and drawbacks.
Part of being a human being is the ability to evaluate.
Yes, everything has benefits and drawbacks but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say, "Well, I guess it just comes down to personal opinion."
Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?
Examine the evidence, evaluate the outcomes and draw conclusions.

In the case of public health care, a lot of the 'evidence' for drawbacks is based on outright lies. Provable, quatifiable, objective falsehoods.

Therefore, the 'evidence' of drawbacks cannot be given the same weight as the evidence of benefits which are based again on actual, objective, quantifiable evidence such as the fact that there is no evidence of any of the apocalyptic and hyperbolic consequences those opposed to universal healthcare are purporting are inevitable in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, where the whole thing can be observed to work just fine thanks.

So on one side, we have drawbacks based on proven falsehood, and on the other we have benefits, based on observable, quantifiable evidence.

There is no equivalency.

Observe, evaluate, conclude.
Seriously, this isn't complex philosophy. This is basic cognition. It's the stuff that stops you shoving your face in a fire, trying to eat rocks or sticking your dick in a bear trap. It's the sort of stuff we normally learn so that we can survive infancy.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Pelosi's mention of swastikas was, and I quote, "They're carrying swastikas." An OBJECTIVELY true statement.

As for your other example, I have seen no news reports that claim only white males are carrying guns to these events. In fact, the footage of that black guy with the assault rifle was so ubiquitous on all the cable channels, that I doubt very much that what you're saying is true or accurate.


"Reporter: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re astroturf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a Town Hall Meeting on Health Care. "

Based on the question she seems to be making the claim that someone protesting a government policy by use of a swastika automatically measn that they are astroturf. Is that correlation "objectively" true? Of course not, people protesting government actions of all kinds have used that symbol for PR purposes, the instinct to call or to imply that the other side are Nazi´s has been used by supporters of both parties in many different contexts over many years.

[Tom]

"Reporter: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re astroturf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a Town Hall Meeting on Health Care. "

Based on the question she seems to be making the claim that someone protesting a government policy by use of a swastika automatically measn that they are astroturf. Is that correlation "objectively" true? Of course not, people protesting government actions of all kinds have used that symbol for PR purposes, the instinct to call or to imply that the other side are Nazi´s has been used by supporters of both parties in many different contexts over many years.

It's amazing to me that you think Pelosi's statement is objectionable but the Nazi comparison doesn't get a mention at all and you think this is comparable to an outright lie, like the death panels nonsense. Of course, this is almost always the case with "reasonable" "non-partisan" above-it-all thinkers like yourself. Such thinking ALWAYS tilts toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the right. It's notable that of all the things you said in this thread so far, the only one for which you were able to give a direct example, was an example of someone on the left saying something you found objectionable. When someone on the right lies their face off, it's "just politics," "everyone does it."

There is not one aspect of her statement that is false. Not only did she offer it as an example of what she thinks, she even left it open to the questioner, "You be the judge." The fact remains, there was nothing dishonest or false about what she said.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Part of being a human being is the ability to evaluate.
Yes, everything has benefits and drawbacks but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say, "Well, I guess it just comes down to personal opinion."

Actually thats exactly what we do. We each make our own opinion of which is better and support the policy that we believe is going to be better.

[QUOTE]
Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?
Examine the evidence, evaluate the outcomes and draw conclusions..
Based on your own personal opinion of which has more weight.


In the case of public health care, a lot of the 'evidence' for drawbacks is based on outright lies. Provable, quatifiable, objective falsehoods.

As is much of the evidence in support of the benefits.


Therefore, the 'evidence' of drawbacks cannot be given the same weight as the evidence of benefits which are based again on actual, objective, quantifiable evidence such as the fact that there is no evidence of any of the apocalyptic and hyperbolic consequences those opposed to universal healthcare are purporting are inevitable in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, where the whole thing can be observed to work just fine thanks.
.
Patients in countries with public healthcare do wait longer for treatment on average than those in america. Patients in Canada, The UK, etc do have lower survival rates for many terminal diseases. patients in the Uk and canada are told what treatments they can and cannot recieve by government. Care is rationed in these countries in a way it is not in the US. This is all true. However the question is how much you value each part of this equation. Which is more important to each individual. Is guarateed care more valuable than the abillity to choose which treatments you ware willing to pay for?The answer is subjective.


So on one side, we have drawbacks based on proven falsehood, and on the other we have benefits, based on observable, quantifiable evidence.


No on both sides there are benefits and drawbacks which are objectively true, each of which has a subjective value based on each individuals personal preferences and opinions.




Observe, evaluate, conclude.

If it were that simple all policy decisions woulod be made by a computer.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

It's amazing to me that you think Pelosi's statement is objectionable but the Nazi comparison doesn't get a mention at all and you think this is comparable to an outright lie, like the death panels nonsense.
.
I didnt say her statement is objectionable. I personally think its a perfectly valid thing for a politician to say in an attempt to support her chosen course of action. It is not however "objectivley true". In fact, whether or not a citizen showing up at a government function is carrying a swastika has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not that citizen is "astroturf" or not. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. A anti-health reform protestor carrying a swastika is no more inherantly "astroturf" than an anti-Iraq war protestor carrying a swastika is inherantly astroturf. If anything here statement was a non-sequitar. It was not by any means however objectively true.

[Pól Rua]

If it were that simple all policy decisions would be made by a computer.
If it were as complex as you claim, no decisions would be made at all.
And yes, it is. It is EXACTLY that simple.
You don't NEED a computer. You have all the tools you need.
You have senses. You can observe.
You have a brain. You can evaluate.
You have a will of your own. You can conclude.

Thinking is not the exclusive domain of machines in Isaac Asimov stories. You too can think for yourself. You may have to actually, oh, I dunno, actually USE your senses, brain and will, but I think you'll find the results well worth it.

Best of luck.

[LtMarvel]

I didnt say her statement is objectionable. I personally think its a perfectly valid thing for a politician to say in an attempt to support her chosen course of action. It is not however "objectivley true". In fact, whether or not a citizen showing up at a government function is carrying a swastika has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not that citizen is "astroturf" or not. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. A anti-health reform protestor carrying a swastika is no more inherantly "astroturf" than an anti-Iraq war protestor carrying a swastika is inherantly astroturf. If anything here statement was a non-sequitar. It was not by any means however objectively true.
You need to go back and quote the statement from Rep. Pelosi. With a link.

[Tom]

I didnt say her statement is objectionable. I personally think its a perfectly valid thing for a politician to say in an attempt to support her chosen course of action. It is not however "objectivley true". In fact, whether or not a citizen showing up at a government function is carrying a swastika has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not that citizen is "astroturf" or not. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. A anti-health reform protestor carrying a swastika is no more inherantly "astroturf" than an anti-Iraq war protestor carrying a swastika is inherantly astroturf. If anything here statement was a non-sequitar. It was not by any means however objectively true.

No, you didn't say it was objectionable; you likened it to outright lies like the death panel nonsense and over-the-top characterizations like the nazi comparions.

And you're wrong. Everything she said was true. She said that SHE THINKS it's a result of astroturfing, and that is clearly true. She said that people are carrying swastikas and that is also clearly true.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

You need to go back and quote the statement from Rep. Pelosi. With a link.


I quoted it earlier

"Reporter: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re astroturf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a Town Hall Meeting on Health Care. "


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/05/pelosi_town_hall_protesters_are_carrying_swastikas .html (Link)

[Paul McEnery]

The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. A anti-health reform protestor carrying a swastika is no more inherantly "astroturf" than an anti-Iraq war protestor carrying a swastika is inherantly astroturf. .

Of course they are.

No corporation paid a single protester against the Iraq War. Not one.

Plenty of corporate interests have paid plenty of anti-healthcare nutters.

Fact. Deal with it. Grow up. Stop lying.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

If it were as complex as you claim, no decisions would be made at all.
And yes, it is. It is EXACTLY that simple.
You don't NEED a computer. You have all the tools you need.
You have senses. You can observe.
You have a brain. You can evaluate.
You have a will of your own. You can conclude.

Thinking is not the exclusive domain of machines in Isaac Asimov stories. You too can think for yourself. You may have to actually, oh, I dunno, actually USE your senses, brain and will, but I think you'll find the results well worth it.

Best of luck.

And many people, having thought about the trade-offs´have concluded that it isnt the best policy to enact. Are you saying that only those who agree with you have sense, or a brain, or a will of thier own?

Life is not that simple. People who are just as smart, and just as thoughtful, and have just as much will as you, or I or anyone else are perfectly capable of disagreeing on the best course of action to take in a complex situation.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Of course they are.

No corporation paid a single protester against the Iraq War. Not one.



Actually there was, if Im not mistaken, quite a bit of sponsership of anti-war protest, by corporations, incorporated organisations, and other groups with thier own inherant biases.

Plenty of corporate interests have paid plenty of anti-healthcare nutters.

Just as quite a few of the current pro-healthcare reform protestors are being paid, either directly or indirectly by pharamcuetical companies and other corporations

Fact. Deal with it. Grow up. Stop lying.

I would aprreciate it if we could at least pretend to disagree like rational adults.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually there was, if Im not mistaken,

You are.

Though to help you understand the difference -- not that you care, it would get in the way of grinding a vicious and idiotic axe -- one is a genuine grass roots organization which has to solicit money in order to pay the government for the privilege of protest; the other doesn't exist until the corporation pays for it to come into existence.

[7thangel]

Patients in countries with public healthcare do wait longer for treatment on average than those in america. Patients in Canada, The UK, etc do have lower survival rates for many terminal diseases. patients in the Uk and canada are told what treatments they can and cannot recieve by government. Care is rationed in these countries in a way it is not in the US. This is all true. However the question is how much you value each part of this equation. Which is more important to each individual. Is guarateed care more valuable than the abillity to choose which treatments you ware willing to pay for?The answer is subjective.

evidence please.

i think it will quite hard to find evidence of wait times because apparently the u.s. doesn't collect those stats.

where are those survival stats and please provide the sources as well

please provide evidence of rationed care in the canada and the u.k. some may come up with evidence of rationed care in the u.s.

evidence please

[Ray R.]

Life is not that simple. People who are just as smart, and just as thoughtful, and have just as much will as you, or I or anyone else are perfectly capable of disagreeing on the best course of action to take in a complex situation.

Sure. By screaming as loudly as they possibly can that the government shouldn't get their socialist hands on their Medicare, no matter how inherently paradoxically stupid, ironic, and hypocritical it might be. Smart and thoughtful, my ass. It's the refuge of the chronically uninformed and willfully obstinate, driven into a frenzy by fear of black people and immigrants taking power and pin-point propaganda delivery.

Save the platitudes. Please.

[carabas]

AWhether one is "better" or not depends on which you feel is more important. Take the current healthcare reform debate. If you personally value universal coverage over individual control, then a single payer system is better. However if you value the abillity to decide for yourself whether or not to seek care, or which treatment options are "worth it" then the current system is better.
Well, I live in Belgium, so I enjoy single-payer.
Universal coverage is a fact, and control is far superior to anything the current American system can provide to people, even insured people, with less money than Bill Gates.
In fact, full control (in so far that even exists) only happens if you can pay for everything out of your own pocket without insurance, or if the government pick up the bill.

AGAIN, YOU ARE BEING LIED TO ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Andc then spreading said lies around like a nice little drone. Well done.

[StoneGold]

AGAIN, YOU ARE BEING LIED TO ON A MASSIVE SCALE.

Yes, you are lying to him about enjoying health care. In fact, you died two years ago because of lack of band-aids in your country.

[carabas]

Do'h. Well, I'l lbetter keel over then, shall I? Given my precarious health, I'd probably would have done so a long time ago anyway as an American uninsured (rather severe pre-existing condition) (or live in a box, of course, or first one and then the other).



"EEK..." baf.

[Matt Algren]

Not in the contex in which they were mentioned, no they are not. As an example, when NBC I think it was cropped video of a black man carrying a gun to an obama appearance as proof of "racial hatred edging on violance" or as an example of "angry white males" it was not objectively true. Nor was the context in which pelosi mentioned swastikas.
Speaking of that black man carrying [an assault rifle] to an Obama appearance, we've found out a little more about him this week. "Chris" (apparently not his real name) gave an interview (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gun-toting-arizona-protester-belongs) and mentioned his "church".

(Radio host Alex) Jones: Now I'm starting to get a clearer picture. You go to Pastor Anderson's church, I see.

Chris: Yeah, yes I do. Proudly. I think it's the best church in the world.

That would be Pastor Steven L. Anderson, someone who's been on my radar for awhile (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/03/worse-than-westboro/), of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Here's a little bit of what Steven Anderson was preaching the day before that appearance:

I'm here to preach the Bible. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gospel-hate-arizona-pastor-steve-and) And I'm sick to death -- hey, let me tell you something. Our country is run by faggots. You know who wrote this 700-billion-dollar bailout bill? You know who was the man who was the architect of the bailout? His name is Barney Franks, he is a pedophile, he has been arrested for uh, interacting with boys that are in their teenage years when he's in his 50s, it's in the news, he's been arrested for it. He is a pedophile, he is a homosexual, he has stood up in the floor of the sacred halls of justice and said, 'I am gay, I am a sodomite.'

That's Barney Frank, that's who just sold our country into fascism. That's who just sold our corporations to the government. That's who sold out our country, a faggot! And I'm here to tell you something! I'm not going to stand for it, and let a faggot run the church! It's bad enough that we've got a bunch of faggots running the government!

...Let me tell you something: Barack Obama has wrought lewdness in America. America has become lewd. What does lewd mean? L-E-W-D? [Pause] Obscene. Right? Dirty. Filthy. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. All of the -- everything that's on the billboard, the TV. Sensuality. Lewdness! We don't even know what lewdness means anymore! We're just surrounded by it, inundated with it!

... And yet you're going to tell me that I'm supposed to pray for the socialist devil, murderer, infanticide, who wants to see young children and he wants to see babies killed through abortion and partial-birth abortion and all these different things -- you're gonna tell me I'm supposed to pray for God to give him a good lunch tomorrow while he's in Phoenix, Arizona.

Nope. I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.

You say, 'Why would you do that?' That our country could be saved.
It should go without saying that this small church is more of a cult than anything else. So Chris, a member of this cult, went to Phoenix with an assault rifle right after being told by his "preacher" that Barack Obama's death would save the country.

Do you see how the dots start to connect, how dangerous this kind of rhetoric is?

[show name]

Disciple_of_the_Bat: I'm a newbie myself, but anyway welcome to CBR! I admire the fact that despite forceful opposition of your stated views you have not yet adopted antagonistic tone or language. A very nice start.

I think that some of the points that you've been making are good ones and that in fact some of the disagreement here is a result of miscommunication rather than actual disagreement on principle...as you seem to be making some points on a general and broad philosophical level about subjectivity/objectivity that are mixed in with specific concrete issues that are emotionally charged at the moment (in the U.S., anyway).

I'd address some of the things you've said, but I don't have the time right now...keep up the civil dissent (which is or is not patriotic? Have we figured that out yet? :biggrin: )

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

evidence please.

i think it will quite hard to find evidence of wait times because apparently the u.s. doesn't collect those stats.

where are those survival stats and please provide the sources as well

please provide evidence of rationed care in the canada and the u.k. some may come up with evidence of rationed care in the u.s.

evidence please


For some reason I just lost a post I spent the last 10 minutes on so I will simply do the short version. As an example The US has far higher 5 year survivalbillity rates for breast and prostate cancer than the UK. I had the links and quotes set up but as I said...

However, that really isnt relevant to the point I am trying to make.

Let me put it this way.
healthcare is always rationed beause it is a limited resource. Always and everywhere.There are only so many doctors, hospitals, etc. In the USA it is rationed economically, ie, can you afford to pay, either directly or indirectly. In the UK, Canada, etc it is rationed by government, certain treatments are approved, certain treatments are not, you must wait untill your turn to recieve those treatments that are approved etc..

However neither approach is objectively better. It is subjective based on the amount of weight you give to certain criteria. For example if the abillity to choose which treatment you are willing to pay for is more important to you than a guarantee you will recieve a treatment approved by others at a time chosen by others, then subjectively the US system would be better to you. On the other hand if the guarantee you will recieve some type of treatment at some point is more important to you than receiveing the exact treatment you are willing to pay for, when you are willing to pay for it the UK system is subjectively better.

As a further example, I have no health insurance. I choose not to purchase it. When I go to the doctor, I pay in cash. I recognise that I am essentially gambling that I will not become seriously ill. So long as I do not, I spend less than if I were to have an insurance policy. If I am wrong I will most likely go bankrupt and be unable to afford care. Regardless of the outcome, I am making a choice as an adult which is my right under the current US system. I am choosing to keep the disposable income I would spend on health insurance. This may end up being a good decision, it may end up being a bad decision. Either way it is my decision. Not everyone would make the same decision. But that does not mean that either they, or I are idiots, or that we lack will, or that we have not thought our decisions through. It simply means that we have made different choices based on different values.

By the same token, whether single payer, individual payer, a public option, or any other form of healthcare rationing is¨"better" is a subjective judgement based on the weight you or others give to each compononent of the equation. Disagreeing about the value of each component does not mean that you, or others are idiots, or have not thought about it.

I hope I have expressed myself a bit more clearly.

[Ray R.]

For some reason I just lost a post I spent the last 10 minutes on so I will simply do the short version. As an example The US has far higher 5 year survivalbillity rates for breast and prostate cancer than the UK. I had the links and quotes set up but as I said...

However, that really isnt relevant to the point I am trying to make.

Let me put it this way.
healthcare is always rationed beause it is a limited resource. Always and everywhere.There are only so many doctors, hospitals, etc. In the USA it is rationed economically, ie, can you afford to pay, either directly or indirectly. In the UK, Canada, etc it is rationed by government, certain treatments are approved, certain treatments are not, you must wait untill your turn to recieve those treatments that are approved etc..

However neither approach is objectively better. It is subjective based on the amount of weight you give to certain criteria. For example if the abillity to choose which treatment you are willing to pay for is more important to you than a guarantee you will recieve a treatment approved by others at a time chosen by others, then subjectively the US system would be better to you. On the other hand if the guarantee you will recieve some type of treatment at some point is more important to you than receiveing the exact treatment you are willing to pay for, when you are willing to pay for it the UK system is subjectively better.

As a further example, I have no health insurance. I choose not to purchase it. When I go to the doctor, I pay in cash. I recognise that I am essentially gambling that I will not become seriously ill. So long as I do not, I spend less than if I were to have an insurance policy. If I am wrong I will most likely go bankrupt and be unable to afford care. Regardless of the outcome, I am making a choice as an adult which is my right under the current US system. I am choosing to keep the disposable income I would spend on health insurance. This may end up being a good decision, it may end up being a bad decision. Either way it is my decision. Not everyone would make the same decision. But that does not mean that either they, or I are idiots, or that we lack will, or that we have not thought our decisions through. It simply means that we have made different choices based on different values.

By the same token, whether single payer, individual payer, a public option, or any other form of healthcare rationing is¨"better" is a subjective judgement based on the weight you or others give to each compononent of the equation. Disagreeing about the value of each component does not mean that you, or others are idiots, or have not thought about it.

I hope I have expressed myself a bit more clearly.

We can't formulate and promulgate new policy affecting 300 million people on subjective choices based on individuals' decisions to risk bankruptcy or not risk bankruptcy.

Insurance is evil, yes we all agree, but the alternative is generally worse. Based on the existence of two evils, most people who think beyond five minutes into the future tend to go with the lesser of the two evils, subjective opinions or no subjective opinions.

Now while I appreciate your effort to distinguish your opinion by classifying it as an intellectual, subjective approach to "choice," the appearance that this post is presenting is that you are taking a selfish, anecdotal view. Every single day you spend in the United States, although your avatar says Costa Rica, you are utilizing collectively-promoted, non-choice, governmental services, unless you live in a cave on an island, and since you are typing this on a computer, I doubt that's the case. From the highway to the sidewalk to the bank to the library to the Internet, you don't have a choice. You might think you do, but you'd be mistaken.

Why national health care, which constitutes how a SOCIETY deals with its sick, wounded, and elderly members, as well as a font for advancement of the species through research, development, prevention, and education, must be considered secondary to the predatory instincts of capitalism is a mystery to me. Instead, it's gamble that you don't get sick, hope that insurance companies "do the right thing," or stick your head in the sand like a retarded ostrich. And then scream that your rights are being taken away from you. Some choice.

[carabas]

For some reason I just lost a post I spent the last 10 minutes on so I will simply do the short version. As an example The US has far higher 5 year survivalbillity rates for breast and prostate cancer than the UK. Would that inluded poor or otherwise the uninsured who are so terrified of seeing a doctor for the cost that they never do until it is far too late?

Let me put it this way.
healthcare is always rationed beause it is a limited resource. Always and everywhere.There are only so many doctors, hospitals, etc. In the USA it is rationed economically, ie, can you afford to pay, either directly or indirectly. In the UK, Canada, etc it is rationed by government, certain treatments are approved, certain treatments are not, you must wait untill your turn to recieve those treatments that are approved etc...

However neither approach is objectively better. It is subjective based on the amount of weight you give to certain criteria. For example if the abillity to choose which treatment you are willing to pay for is more important to you than a guarantee you will recieve a treatment approved by others at a time chosen by others, then subjectively the US system would be better to you. On the other hand if the guarantee you will recieve some type of treatment at some point is more important to you than receiveing the exact treatment you are willing to pay for, when you are willing to pay for it the UK system is subjectively better.This is of course based on the false assumption that the American system offers vastly more different treatments than a single-payer one.

As a further example, I have no health insurance. I choose not to purchase it. When I go to the doctor, I pay in cash. I recognise that I am essentially gambling that I will not become seriously ill etceteraYou will. Age will take it's toll sooner ot later. How does that work with dependants in the American system? Anyway, you are a very short-sighted, greedy idiot.

[Ray R.]

It's also grossly narrow-sighted and dense to frame the healthcare debate as one of "personal choice."

Tax payers, i.e., the collective "us" in the United States pay for:

Uninsured victims who end up in the emergency room.

Bankruptcy protection from the United States courts, which by cancelling, postponing, defaulting or paying pennies on the dollars to debts to creditors just raises premiums, costs, fees and other expenses to the rest of us who pay our bills. The bill WILL be paid. Usually by those who already pay the most.

There are tons of indirect costs to taxpayers: For example, bankruptcy leads to foreclosure which can lead to bank failure which leads to government-insured takeovers of these banks, costing billions of dollars to the taxpayers. I work for a banking regulatory agency, so I know of what I speak.

To think that personally declaring bankruptcy as a way to deal with medical costs in the current system is anything but short-sighted selfishness is incredible.

[jesse_custer]

I just wish people would get better instead of leading us down the road of communism and demonic rituals.

[7thangel]

For some reason I just lost a post I spent the last 10 minutes on so I will simply do the short version. As an example The US has far higher 5 year survivalbillity rates for breast and prostate cancer than the UK. I had the links and quotes set up but as I said...

However, that really isnt relevant to the point I am trying to make.

Let me put it this way.
healthcare is always rationed beause it is a limited resource. Always and everywhere.There are only so many doctors, hospitals, etc. In the USA it is rationed economically, ie, can you afford to pay, either directly or indirectly. In the UK, Canada, etc it is rationed by government, certain treatments are approved, certain treatments are not, you must wait untill your turn to recieve those treatments that are approved etc..



i'm going to assume you're ignorant to the truth rather than you're outright lying. the gov't do not have a say in what treatment someone can get or who can get it. if you can't find your source don't bring it up. hmo's and private insurers determining what can or can't be done is another story.

the consistent use of the breast cancer meme from the right.

here's a link
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7278

excerpt showing the concord study

Five year relative breast cancer survival rates from CONCORD study.
Rank....Country....mean (95% confidence interval)
1..........Cuba..........84.0 (82.9, 85.2)
2..........US.............83.9 (83.7, 84.1)
3..........Canada......82.5 (81.9, 83.0)
4.........Sweden......82.0 (81.2, 82.7)
5.........Japan..........81.6 (79.5, 83.5)
6.........Australia.. ..80.7 (80.1, 81.3)
8.........France........79.8 (78.2, 81.4)
22.......England......69.8 (69.5, 70.2)

nevermind the cherrypicking, how many aren't included in the u.s. study due to not getting that treatment in th first place

here's another link
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dyp193v1

how about the nortality rate, the other cancers, heart disease, etc, etc? hell, neither canada or the u.k are rated the best healthcare countries, yet they're rated higher than the u.s

[Ray R.]

nevermind the cherrypicking, how many aren't included in the u.s. study due to not getting that treatment in th first place



Dead men (and women) tell no tales.

[Matt Algren]

It's also grossly narrow-sighted and dense to frame the healthcare debate as one of "personal choice."

Tax payers, i.e., the collective "us" in the United States pay for:

Uninsured victims who end up in the emergency room.

Bankruptcy protection from the United States courts, which by cancelling, postponing, defaulting or paying pennies on the dollars to debts to creditors just raises premiums, costs, fees and other expenses to the rest of us who pay our bills. The bill WILL be paid. Usually by those who already pay the most.

There are tons of indirect costs to taxpayers: For example, bankruptcy leads to foreclosure which can lead to bank failure which leads to government-insured takeovers of these banks, costing billions of dollars to the taxpayers. I work for a banking regulatory agency, so I know of what I speak.

To think that personally declaring bankruptcy as a way to deal with medical costs in the current system is anything but short-sighted selfishness is incredible.
Health insurance doesn't even mean you're financially in the clear. Harvard Law and Harvard Medical Schools did a joint study with numbers from 2001, published in 2005 (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html).
The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

And to top it all off:
"With national health insurance ('Medicare for All'), we could provide comprehensive, lifelong coverage to all Americans for the same amount we are spending now and end the cruelty of ruining families financially when they get sick."

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

We can't formulate and promulgate new policy affecting 300 million people on subjective choices based on individuals' decisions to risk bankruptcy or not risk bankruptcy.
.
I never suggested we should. I was simply pointing out that the "right" policy decision will be based on an inherantly subjective assesment of the benefits and risks.

.
Insurance is evil, yes we all agree, but the alternative is generally worse. Based on the existence of two evils, most people who think beyond five minutes into the future tend to go with the lesser of the two evils, subjective opinions or no subjective opinions.
.
No I dont agree that " insurance is evil" in fact I think that a rather childish and unsupportable statement.

.
Now while I appreciate your effort to distinguish your opinion by classifying it as an intellectual, subjective approach to "choice," the appearance that this post is presenting is that you are taking a selfish, anecdotal view.
.
I have yet to make an argument either for or against national healthcare, whether as a "public option", "single payer" or "insurance". I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that whether or not a given course of action is desirable is based on ones subjective weighing of the various factors involved.

.

Every single day you spend in the United States, although your avatar says Costa Rica, you are utilizing collectively-promoted, non-choice, governmental services, unless you live in a cave on an island, and since you are typing this on a computer, I doubt that's the case. From the highway to the sidewalk to the bank to the library to the Internet, you don't have a choice. You might think you do, but you'd be mistaken.
.
1) I havent lived in the US for almost 10 years. (allthough I do own a residence there)
2) The internet is not a public service provided by government. Nor is a computer, nor is a Bank. Allthough nowadays banks might accurately be considered government owned or at the very least subsidised.

.
Why national health care, which constitutes how a SOCIETY deals with its sick, wounded, and elderly members, as well as a font for advancement of the species through research, development, prevention, and education, must be considered secondary to the predatory instincts of capitalism is a mystery to me.
.
I would contend that national healthcare is how a government, rather than a society, decides to determines how to distribute the limited resources available. Secondly, I would contend that capitalism has a far better track record of efficiently utilising limited resources than any government than has ever existed.


Instead, it's gamble that you don't get sick, hope that insurance companies "do the right thing," or stick your head in the sand like a retarded ostrich. And then scream that your rights are being taken away from you. Some choice.

My point was not that my choices should be imposed on others it was the exact opposite. My point was that I personally value the freedom to make that choice far more than I do any nominal guarantee to have that choice made for me, and that whether or not you agree with my choice is a direct result of your subjective valuation.

Furthermore I would point out that government has a far longer track record of not "doing the right thing" than do corporations. It was not a Corporation that killed 6 million jews in the holocaust, or caused 1/4 of the chinese population to die by starvation in an effort to remake society. It was not "predatory capitalism" which broke 10,000 treaties with the Native Nations, nor was it a for profit corporation which forcibly sterilised those demed "feeble" or "undesirable" in the 30s and 40s.

I would also point out, that if your insurance company doesnt " do the right thing" you can take action against them legally. The government on the other hand is protected from lawsuits in almost all situations and those who make the decisions to "do the wrong thing" are rarely if ever held accountable for thier actions if in government.

As an example when blackwater was acused of perpetrating atrocities in Iraq, they were sued, tried, and whether or not you agreed with the verdict, one was rendered. However while the US government was also accused of perpetrating atrocities in Iraq there has yet to be a single trial.
(I am not saying I either beleive or disbelieve that the US government or blackwater did in fact commit atrocities. I am simply pointing out that holding corporations and individuals accountable for thier percieved misdeeds is far far easier than holding governments accountable for thiers.)

Now given that Governments have no more propensity to act in what I consider to be a moral fashion than either individuals or corporations and are far harder to be made accountable when they are do not, I wonder why there is such passion to invest in government even greater power than it now has.

Again this is not an argument for or against national healthcare. Its simply further illustration that this is not an issue of one side being right and the other wrong, but an issue in which which side you take will be determined by the value you place on different criteria.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

This is of course based on the false assumption that the American system offers vastly more different treatments than a single-payer one.



No, its based on the fact that healthcare, however defined, is a finite resource. It is not unlimited. No matter what system you have, there are only so many doctors, pills, etc.

[Rev. Calibos]

Speaking of that black man carrying [an assault rifle] to an Obama appearance, we've found out a little more about him this week. "Chris" (apparently not his real name) gave an interview (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gun-toting-arizona-protester-belongs) and mentioned his "church".



That would be Pastor Steven L. Anderson, someone who's been on my radar for awhile (http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/03/worse-than-westboro/), of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Here's a little bit of what Steven Anderson was preaching the day before that appearance:


It should go without saying that this small church is more of a cult than anything else. So Chris, a member of this cult, went to Phoenix with an assault rifle right after being told by his "preacher" that Barack Obama's death would save the country.

Do you see how the dots start to connect, how dangerous this kind of rhetoric is?

Is the rhetoric dangerous or are the individuals with the firearms the real danger?

I vote 'guns' as being a bit more dangerous than 'ideas' even if I disagree 100% with the ideas in question.

This reminds me of the abortion doctor who was murdered in his church a while back. There were a number of folks who wanted to point the finger at Bill O'Reilly for 'inspiring' the shooter to kill Dr. Tiller while others felt that it was a fringe Pro-Life group that was behind the killing.

What's being overlooked is 'Hey, could it have been that, oh, I don't know.....he was a loon? Maybe that's why he did it?'

People like this exist sadly enough and, unfortunately, any number of things can act as a 'trigger' to send them down this particular path. If not a fundie preacher then perhaps a Fox blowhard. If not a Fox blowhard then perhaps a violent video game.

In this instance we don't know all of the particulars, was the fundie's sermon the sole reason or was there something more?

Or, (most likely) was it just because he was a loon?

[jesse_custer]

Its simply further illustration that this is not an issue of one side being right and the other wrong, but an issue in which which side you take will be determined by the value you place on different criteria.

So in other words, every view is subjective, so it doesn't matter who suffers as a result of the system you support.

Interesting thesis.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

i'm going to assume you're ignorant to the truth rather than you're outright lying. the gov't do not have a say in what treatment someone can get or who can get it.



He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the government pays, the government then decides what treatments are and are not covered.




the consistent use of the breast cancer meme from the right.




The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

So in other words, every view is subjective, so it doesn't matter who suffers as a result of the system you support.

Interesting thesis.

Regardless of what system you or I support people will suffer. We do not live in a perfect, or IMO perfectable world.

[Matt Algren]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the government pays, the government then decides what treatments are and are not covered.





The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
Are you suggesting that it's the health insurance that delivers better care?

[Ray R.]

Furthermore I would point out that government has a far longer track record of not "doing the right thing" than do corporations. It was not a Corporation that killed 6 million jews in the holocaust, or caused 1/4 of the chinese population to die by starvation in an effort to remake society. It was not "predatory capitalism" which broke 10,000 treaties with the Native Nations, nor was it a for profit corporation which forcibly sterilised those demed "feeble" or "undesirable" in the 30s and 40s.

<snip>

Again this is not an argument for or against national healthcare. Its simply further illustration that this is not an issue of one side being right and the other wrong, but an issue in which which side you take will be determined by the value you place on different criteria.

Oh, I get it. You're operating on a higher plane than me, dropping the Nazis and Communist China as an example of government policy, and equating that with healthcare in the United States. Godwin's Law, back in effect, once again.

Government policy has generally practical applications with measurable metrics and results. People who disagree with policy have a mechanism to deal with the results, it's called representational democracy. One person, one vote. We don't live in a dictatorship, except apparently the one scarily existing in your mind. That theoretical boogeyman of lost freedoms and stifled dissent.

I don't want to play your equivocation game of ambiguous rights and wrongs. And we certainly don't need a referee to tell everybody that it's "complex." People who provide dissent by screaming at public meetings that they want the government to keep their hands off their Medicare are not smart and informed, and they're not dissenting about the issue, they're dissenting in a parallel universe.

But I hope you don't need to declare bankruptcy in your lollipop and gumdrop world of subjective uncertainty and unmitigated choice about health care, because I, in the real world, would prefer not to carry your sorry ass by paying higher premiums and co-pays because you did. That's my dissent.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Are you suggesting that it's the health insurance that delivers better care?
No. Im suggesting that which system is better is neither simple, nor obvious, nor objective. There are tradeoffs to each. Typically, (and I recognise that this is a gross generalisation) For profit systems tend to be more innovative, more efficient, and more responsive to patient (or consumer) demands. . Government controlled systems tend to be more equal, more standardised, and more suuceptible to organisational inertia.

[Paul McEnery]

Is the rhetoric dangerous or are the individuals with the firearms the real danger?

I vote 'guns' as being a bit more dangerous than 'ideas' even if I disagree 100% with the ideas in question.

An easy mistake to make, but in fact rhetoric is the opposite of "ideas", a means of preventing ideas and the truth about ideas from coming to light by pushing people's emotional buttons.

For example: "let's kill all the Malaysians!" is a rhetorical figure. While it functions because it contains and links the concepts "kill" and "Malaysians", its primary goal is to incite action.

And I rather think that history bears out the fact that such rhetoric is a great deal more dangerous than guns.

This reminds me of the abortion doctor who was murdered in his church a while back. There were a number of folks who wanted to point the finger at Bill O'Reilly for 'inspiring' the shooter to kill Dr. Tiller while others felt that it was a fringe Pro-Life group that was behind the killing.

What's being overlooked is 'Hey, could it have been that, oh, I don't know.....he was a loon? Maybe that's why he did it?'

It wasn't overlooked. It was ridiculed as the kind of thing that only the willfully ignorant would say; well, them and the rhetoricians trying to cover their tracks for the evil that they do.

People like this exist sadly enough

No. They don't just exist. They're not born like that. They're turned into that.


and, unfortunately, any number of things can act as a 'trigger' to send them down this particular path.

And if one isn't a complete lazy tart, one can enumerate them and act against them.

If, however, one's aim is to excuse the hatemongering tossers of the far right, best to act like rhetoric isn't one of them, eh?; and best to pretend that those rhetoricians aren't in fact hand in glove with the people who organize mob violence, eh?


If not a fundie preacher then perhaps a Fox blowhard. If not a Fox blowhard then perhaps a violent video game.

Aha! The first flat out lie.

There's no evidence that video games actually promote lunatic violence. None whatsoever.

The stealth lie is the phrase "Fox blowhard". Here we detect the trace of rhetoric. They can't actually be responsible for inciting violence if they're only "blowhards".
But only a fool would say that, at least, if they actually meant it. Because they're quite obviously part of a deliberate propaganda campaign intended to incite hatred for political purposes.

In this instance we don't know all of the particulars, was the fundie's sermon the sole reason or was there something more?

And another rhetorical misdirection.

It doesn't, of course, matter one whit if the sermon was the sole cause or just a contributory cause. It was, nevertheless, a cause; a deliberate incitement to violence.

And unless you're a complete idiot, you recognize that people who gather together with such a preacher are all already evil bastards; and evil bastards who weren't born that way, they were made that way by other evil bastards; and that the preacher is the worst of the evil bastards, because he's got an audience of people to whom enough damage has been done that they're a danger to the rest of us, and he's inciting them to murder.

At which point the interesting question is: why the fuck would you want to make excuses for this shit?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Oh, I get it. You're operating on a higher plane than me, dropping the Nazis and Communist China as an example of government policy, and equating that with healthcare in the United States. Godwin's Law, back in effect, once again..
No, Im pointing out that governments tend to be less acountable for thier actions, and have greater abillity to cause more damage as a result of thier policies.


Government policy has generally practical applications with measurable metrics and results.
.
I would contend that governments are not bound by any metrics except power in the case of dictatorship and `popularity in the case of democracies.
As an example, the post office is decidely less efficient than either UPS or Fed-ex as measured by virtually any metric you can name, however becuase it is part of government those metrics are irrelevant. It continues to exist in spite of those metrics, not becuase of them.




People who provide dissent by screaming at public meetings that they want the government to keep their hands off their Medicare are not smart and informed, and they're not dissenting about the issue, they're dissenting in a parallel universe.
.
There are idiots saying nonsensical things on all sides of any issue. That a few idiots support a position does not make that position wrong.

[7thangel]

He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If the government pays, the government then decides what treatments are and are not covered.





The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
sigh, cuba would be the highest at 84%. and you didn't address how it''s cherrypicking, what about the other cancers? other diseases? the overall care? mortality rate? etc, etc

sorry, canadian doctors aren't gov't employees and aren't paid by the gov't, they own their own private practices. maybe you might want to get informed on the facts and how it's run in canada, as well as, the u.k. and other countries.

[Paul McEnery]

No, Im pointing out that governments tend to be less acountable for thier actions, and have greater abillity to cause more damage as a result of thier policies.

Of course!

The people who are accountable to the public servants we vote for really can't be trusted as much as private companies who answer only to the people who are getting big fat cheques from them.

How could I have been so blind?


I would contend that governments are not bound by any metrics .

I would contend you're using big words whose operating manual you haven't read.

[Ray R.]

No, Im pointing out that governments tend to be less acountable for thier actions, and have greater abillity to cause more damage as a result of thier policies.

Mmm-hmm. And you're using the Nazis and Mao's Communist China in a discussion about health care in the United States. Hyperbolize much?

I would contend that governments are not bound by any metrics except power in the case of dictatorship and `popularity in the case of democracies.
As an example, the post office is decidely less efficient than either UPS or Fed-ex as measured by virtually any metric you can name, however becuase it is part of government those metrics are irrelevant. It continues to exist in spite of those metrics, not becuase of them.

Bullshit. First search result I pulled up:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/shopping/shopping-tips/fedex-vs-ups-vs-the-postal-service/overview/package-delivery-services-ov.htm

Our destinations were as near as New York City and as far as Lake Oswego, Ore. We packed the books in a bag, box, or envelope based on the shipper’s recommendation; dropped off the packages midweek within hours of one another; and used regular next-day delivery. That’s Standard Overnight for FedEx, Express Mail for the Postal Service, and Next Day Air Saver for UPS.

Every package reached its destination the next day. But overnight shipping prices to the same place differed by as much as 281 percent. The Postal Service was the least expensive by far for local and long-distance deliveries. For letter-size envelopes, such as the ones it gave us for sending the books, it charges a flat rate of $16.50. (Flat rates for slower delivery are lower.)

The other shippers base prices on weight and distance traveled. UPS charged $62.87 to send our book next-day to Oregon and $29.55 to Manhattan. FedEx charged $54.57 and $27.48, respectively.

We also checked prices to send a 5-pound package from New York to California regular next-day, two-day, and slower ground. The Postal Service won again in the first two categories and more or less tied in the third (see 3 Shippers, 3 Time Frames). And unlike the other carriers, the Postal Service doesn’t add a fuel surcharge, which is adjusted monthly by the other carriers. In September it was about 10 percent for domestic ground shipments and 27 percent for those sent by air. The Postal Service also offers discounts of 3 percent to 11 percent to customers who arrange their shipping online.

Asked how the Postal Service, an independent part of the U.S. government’s executive branch, can deliver overnight shipping for less, a spokeswoman, Yvonne Yoerger, said: "We have an infrastructure in place and letter carriers everywhere. We’re simply adding package delivery to a network that already exists."

All three delivered next-day mail as promised, but the good old U.S. Postal Service is often cheapest by far.



There are idiots saying nonsensical things on all sides of any issue. That a few idiots support a position does not make that position wrong.

A few idiots? Really? Just a few? Seems like more than a few, if television coverage is any indication. Wonder if any of them on the right side of the political spectrum also call them "idiots" or if that designation is only accorded to anonymous commenters on comic book websites. I thought all dissent was okily-dokily. The position isn't wrong, just the random idiots screaming it to the rafters. Gotcha.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

sigh, cuba would be the highest at 84%. and you didn't address how it''s cherrypicking, what about the other cancers? other diseases? the overall care? mortality rate? etc, etc.

Im know cubans who have escaped from cuba. I also know that the statistics produced by cuba are as close to accurate as the the moon is to marmalade. Accepting cuba´s staistics at face value is like accepting a con-mans alibi on his good word.

On the other hand the UK, Canada, and the USA are open socieites in which government lies can and usually are refuted.

.
sorry, canadian doctors aren't gov't employees and aren't paid by the gov't, they own their own private practices. maybe you might want to get informed on the facts and how it's run in canada, as well as, the u.k. and other countries.


Didnt canadians have to take a case to the supreme court in order to "win" the right to private healthcare?
I dont pretend to be an expert on canada or healtcare, I can only go by whats publisghed by researchers. According to those who are experts, canadians wait longer for treatments, and have less choice or recourse inn thier care than do Americans. Anecdotally, many canadians come to the US for treatments, while very few Americans go to canada for free healthcare.

[Ray R.]

Im know cubans who have escaped from cuba. I also know that the statistics produced by cuba are as close to accurate as the the moon is to marmalade. Accepting cuba´s staistics at face value is like accepting a con-mans alibi on his good word.

Well, you personally know escaped Cubans. They're definitely experts on Cuban health care. I choose the anecdote of a boat person if at all possible over United Nations-verifiable fact.

On the other hand the UK, Canada, and the USA are open socieites in which government lies can and usually are refuted.

Wait, now they're not like the Nazis and Communist China? I'm confused.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

.

Bullshit. First search result I pulled up:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/shopping/shopping-tips/fedex-vs-ups-vs-the-postal-service/overview/package-delivery-services-ov.htm

.
Its easy to charge less, when losses are paid for by someone else.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Well, you personally know escaped Cubans. They're definitely experts on Cuban health care. I choose the anecdote of a boat person if at all possible over United Nations-verifiable fact.



Wait, now they're not like the Nazis and Communist China? I'm confused.


I wish I could say it was enjoyable trying to have a rational discussion with you. Have a nice day.

[Ray R.]

.
Its easy to charge less, when losses are paid for by someone else.

When is a metric not a metric?

[Ray R.]

I wish I could say it was enjoyable trying to have a rational discussion with you. Have a nice day.

Good luck pointing out where I was irrational. I tend not to drop Nazi Germany and subjective ambiguity into my arguments.

Face it, you got pwned, by numerous posters, including myself. Think about what you're trying to say, formulate a cohesive argument, work on your spelling and grammar, and come back stronger and better. I have faith in you.

Have a wonderful, healthy, non-bankrupt day yourself.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Of course!

The people who are accountable to the public servants we vote for really can't be trusted as much as private companies who answer only to the people who are getting big fat cheques from them.

How could I have been so blind?

.

Private companies can also be sued, disbanded, bought, bankrupted, charged with crimes, and disolved. Government by and large can not be. We may vote every few years, but beyond that we have no way of ensuring that governments do what we want them to. Even when we do vote, unless thier actions were so eggregious as to offend all or nearly all of the people, the chances that they will be held accountable for any misconduct are fairly low. I dont know your politics, but I know many people felt that the Iraq war was essentially an atrocity committed by bush against the world. For the sake of argument lets assume for a moment that it was. What are the chances of W ever being tried, much less convicted for any of the deaths that occured as a result? On the other side of the spectrum lets say you hold the view that congressional leaks of various national secuirty programs to the newspapers was in fact treason, again what are the chances of anyone in congress ever being tried, much less convicted for it?

[jesse_custer]

Regardless of what system you or I support people will suffer.

And guess who suffers the most under the current system? Those who need the most help. Isn't that admirable.

[7thangel]

Im know cubans who have escaped from cuba. I also know that the statistics produced by cuba are as close to accurate as the the moon is to marmalade. Accepting cuba´s staistics at face value is like accepting a con-mans alibi on his good word.

On the other hand the UK, Canada, and the USA are open socieites in which government lies can and usually are refuted.

.


Didnt canadians have to take a case to the supreme court in order to "win" the right to private healthcare?
I dont pretend to be an expert on canada or healtcare, I can only go by whats publisghed by researchers. According to those who are experts, canadians wait longer for treatments, and have less choice or recourse inn thier care than do Americans. Anecdotally, many canadians come to the US for treatments, while very few Americans go to canada for free healthcare.
wow, very selective in what we should believe. hmm, some may say that the u.s. insuranced run system may have a need to fudge numbers as well, nevermind those that aren't counted (the uninsured), no, that's impossible. and yet still no answer to the other stuff.

what case is this? again link please.

again, u.s. doesn't compile wait times

what experts? the canadian and british ones that keep correcting the lies and misinfo stated by the repubs?

funny you should mention those canucks that come to the states due to things like their local area hospital (like windsor) not having the facilities for a particular procedure and the closest one being across the border (like detroit), the canuck gov't pays for that, not the patient. in comparison, do some research on medical healthcare tourism by americans

here are some links (see it's not hard, i'm sure you can find some to back you up, just check nro, freeper, fox, lgf, etc)

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
http://www.ourfuture.org/node/21313
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers
http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm
http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/08/21/public-health-care-canadian-perspective-on-myths-and-reality/
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9499:uk-newspaper-article-dispels-many-myths-about-national-health-care&catid=88888989:health-care-reform&Itemid=88890248
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

curious, how about the other countries? i don't recall anybody stating canada or the u.k. had the best systems either

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

And guess who suffers the most under the current system? Those who need the most help. Isn't that admirable.
Dont those who "need the most help" always suffer the most, pretty much by defintion. I mean if they didnt "need help" thery wouldnt be suffering, and if they arent suffering, they dont need help do they?
Isnt that kind of like saying that the least fortunate always have the least?
Whether its the poor in a capitalistic system, or the out of power in a tolitarian system, or the non-party members in a communist system, those who need the most help will always suffer the most and vice versa. To me the important question is really "what is the difference between the most and least fortunate" and whether or not the reason they are "less fortunate" is based on something tangible and changable. To put it another way If I am "less fortunate" becuase I am poor, or uneducated, I can (within reason ) change that. On the other hand ( to use a blatant (if rather extreme) example If I am less fortunate bnecuase I am not a relative of those in power there isnt much I can do about that.

[mikekerr3]

I
Nor is the claim that the proposed reform will cost us nothing while at the same time increasing quality of and access to care.

What idiot said that, not any major player that i have heard of, Can you provide a qout and a source, the only politicians I know who are sincerely that dimwitted are Bachman, King and Palin Mckinney from Texas is just completely around the bend crazy not stupid



Perhaps, but the other news networks do just as much lying, or advocacy journalism, or whatever you want to call it.

Examples sources statisics?



For example, on rationing. The right claims that a public option would require the government to ration care. This is true.

I have government health care. two kinds of it and that is utter bullshit, Check out the VA, Tricare, or Medicare, where is that rationing you say comes with a government health plan?

\

[jesse_custer]

Dont those who "need the most help" always suffer the most, pretty much by defintion.

Nope. Sometimes poor people get by and have content lives. Some kind of way and with luck. All I'm saying is that this system favors the powerful so blatantly that it's disgusting and depraved.

It's not about choice, either. There are people who choose to have insurance, and they pay the bills on time every fucking time, but when they wind up needing help, they don't necessarily get it.

I am not for a nanny state, but there are some things the government needs to control. Leaving the health care system as it is is about as irresponsible as putting the military in the hands of gangs.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

wow, very selective in what we should believe. hmm, some may say that the u.s. insuranced run system may have a need to fudge numbers as well, nevermind those that aren't counted (the uninsured), no, that's impossible. and yet still no answer to the other stuff.


I have no doubts that many would like to. The difference that I see, is that if an insurance company lies, others can find evidence of such, or disprove them.
On the other hand when a totalitarian government lies, to even attempt to do so is usually a death sentance, litterally.


what case is this? again link please.

A surprise ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a Quebec prohibition on private health insurance in that province has raised fears that a two tier health care system will arise to replace the whole country's universal publicly funded system. Until now, Canadians have not been allowed to buy health insurance to cover services provided by the publicly funded system, even though there are long waits for some of these services. The decision of the court is likely to result in residents of other provinces also challenging the ban.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=558367




here are some links (see it's not hard, i'm sure you can find some to back you up, just check nro, freeper, fox, lgf, etc)

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
http://www.ourfuture.org/node/21313
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-healthcare-part-ii-debunking-free-marketeers
http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm
http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/08/21/public-health-care-canadian-perspective-on-myths-and-reality/
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9499:uk-newspaper-article-dispels-many-myths-about-national-health-care&catid=88888989:health-care-reform&Itemid=88890248
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html


Thank you, I will do so.

[mikekerr3]

OK, I can see how you might have misinterperted that. In the text quoted I was referring to political policies. Not to the claims being made by those in favor of or opposition to those policies. I wasnt claiming that there is no such thing as an objectivly true claim, but that there was no objective right or wrong in terms of which policies were better.

Jim crow laws were a political policy

Manzanar was the result of a political policy

Laws against interracial marriage were political policy

Slavery was a political policy

Women have no property right and no vote was a politcal policy

Torture of prisoners was a political policy

All of those were objectively wrong

[dupont2005]

totalitarian government


death sentance

pulling out all the stops huh?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Nope. Sometimes poor people get by and have content lives. Some kind of way and with luck. All I'm saying is that this system favors the powerful so blatantly that it's disgusting and depraved.
.

All systems favor the powerful. They have the power. In my experience however ours favors the powerful less than others, in general.

.
It's not about choice, either. There are people who choose to have insurance, and they pay the bills on time every fucking time, but when they wind up needing help, they don't necessarily get it.
.
And the same happens to some in countries with nationalised healthcare systems. Despite the "guaranteed" coverage.
.
I am not for a nanny state, but there are some things the government needs to control. Leaving the health care system as it is is about as irresponsible as putting the military in the hands of gangs.
Im not an anarchist, But I do beleive that the more control the government has, the less I and you have. IMO giving control of the healthcare system to the government makes about as much sense as giving air traffic controllers on the job whiskey.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

pulling out all the stops huh?

Are you saying that Cuba is not a totalitarian government that executes people for dissent?

[Tom]

Are you saying that Cuba is not a totalitarian government that executes people for dissent?

Maybe he's just saying that In politics, there is no objective right or wrong, only opinions and POV's.

[mikekerr3]

I would contend that governments are not bound by any metrics except power in the case of dictatorship and `popularity in the case of democracies.
As an example, the post office is decidely less efficient than either UPS or Fed-ex as measured by virtually any metric you can name, however because it is part of government those metrics are irrelevant. It continues to exist in spite of those metrics, not becuase of them.


USPS can deliver a letter anywhere in the US for 42 cents within a week, Bulk mail loses money but has corporate sponsors and lobbyists, The USPS is extremely efficient and usually provides the same services at a lower cost except for high end services.


Please try to use fact's not outright lies or talking points.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Jim crow laws were a political policy

Manzanar was the result of a political policy

Laws against interracial marriage were political policy

Slavery was a political policy

Women have no property right and no vote was a politcal policy

Torture of prisoners was a political policy

All of those were objectively wrong

And where any of those who created, crafted, enforced, or made those policies ever tried, convicted, or held accountable?
Did Bull Connors ever go to jail his actions?
Did those who voted against the abolition of slavery in the US Congress ever go on trial? Did those who wrote laws banning interracial marriage ever stand in a court of law?
So again I ask, how exactly is government more accountable than than other entities such as for profit corporations?
The KKK, a private organisation, was hounded, investigated, and nearly broken by lawsuits, trials, and legal actions. Its leaders were incarcerated, fined, and ruined. Where the Senators, Congressmen or other government officials who supported them ever even tried?
Again this isnt about which side of the political spectrum you are on. Did joe Mccarthy ever stand trial for the lives he ruined? Did Stalin?
Given how largely unaccountable government is for the past actions it has taken, why would anyone give it more power and more opportunity to do evil?

This is the disconnect I dont understand. I remember people howling about the Patriot act, and yet a few years later we are considering giving the government the power to control our medical care? Really?

Even assuming This government would never do anything unseemly, what about the next? Or the one after?




If the power to tap ones phones is so dangerous, then how is the power to decide on what medical treatments ones recieves and when not?

[Tom]

Bravo. You kept up the "measured, reasonable, non-partisan" fiction for a good while there.

[7thangel]

A surprise ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a Quebec prohibition on private health insurance in that province has raised fears that a two tier health care system will arise to replace the whole country's universal publicly funded system. Until now, Canadians have not been allowed to buy health insurance to cover services provided by the publicly funded system, even though there are long waits for some of these services. The decision of the court is likely to result in residents of other provinces also challenging the ban.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=558367




4 years later and that still hasn't happened. as provinces control how they deliver care, quebec is always sited as one of the worse, with many theories as to why that is. canadians overwhelmingly do not want a two tiered system.

again, how about other countries? how about medicare? va care? shit, at least bring up the state mass. if you want to do a vs debate.

oh, have you come up with the rationed/denied care info yet?

[dupont2005]

Are you saying that Cuba is not a totalitarian government that executes people for dissent?

are you saying america would be headed toward that type of government if we had a national health care option?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

USPS can deliver a letter anywhere in the US for 42 cents within a week, Bulk mail loses money but has corporate sponsors and lobbyists, The USPS is extremely efficient and usually provides the same services at a lower cost except for high end services.


Please try to use fact's not outright lies or talking points.

No it only charges 42 cents. That does not mean it only costs 42 cents. When the USPS operates at a loss, as it often does, we pay for it whether we sent any letters or not. This year it lost 4.2 billion dollars. Or rather we did.. Becuase when the USPS operates at a loss, those losses are paid for out of taxes that we pay. fed-ex, does not have this power. Nor does UPS. When they operate at a loss, thier shareholders or thier customers pay. They and they alone. Most of the cost of USPS services are not charged to the user, they are spread out among all taxpayers.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

are you saying america would be headed toward that type of government if we had a national health care option?

No.
Why dont you go back and read what I said that in response to.

[mikekerr3]

.
Its easy to charge less, when losses are paid for by someone else.


How much money came from the Federal budget for the USPS lat year? The year before that, the decade? do you have a clue?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Bravo. You kept up the "measured, reasonable, non-partisan" fiction for a good while there.


I beleive that "fiction" was something you came up with out of your own imagination.
I never claimed to be non-partissan.
I also believe I have been quite reasonable.

[Matt Algren]

I'd've sworn you just said that you haven't lived in the US in years.

[Tom]

I beleive that "fiction" was something you came up with out of your own imagination.
I never claimed to be non-partissan.
I also believe I have been quite reasonable.

I believe that fiction is self-evident in your slowly shifting argument.
A "everybody does it, both sides are bad" is the very definition of a nonpartisan stance.
I believe your arguments, specifically the one that claimed there is no right and wrong in politics, are so monstrous that couching them in polite words is meaningless.

[7thangel]

And where any of those who created, crafted, enforced, or made those policies ever tried, convicted, or held accountable?
Did Bull Connors ever go to jail his actions?
Did those who voted against the abolition of slavery in the US Congress ever go on trial? Did those who wrote laws banning interracial marriage ever stand in a court of law?
So again I ask, how exactly is government more accountable than than other entities such as for profit corporations?
The KKK, a private organisation, was hounded, investigated, and nearly broken by lawsuits, trials, and legal actions. Its leaders were incarcerated, fined, and ruined. Where the Senators, Congressmen or other government officials who supported them ever even tried?
Again this isnt about which side of the political spectrum you are on. Did joe Mccarthy ever stand trial for the lives he ruined? Did Stalin?
Given how largely unaccountable government is for the past actions it has taken, why would anyone give it more power and more opportunity to do evil?

This is the disconnect I dont understand. I remember people howling about the Patriot act, and yet a few years later we are considering giving the government the power to control our medical care? Really?

Even assuming This government would never do anything unseemly, what about the next? Or the one after?




If the power to tap ones phones is so dangerous, then how is the power to decide on what medical treatments ones recieves and when not?

morris dees had the wise idea to sue the pants and land from the kkk and such but that's another story.

if the gov't plan will be so badly run, filled with evil, what's the prob? there's no way it will be able to compete with a superior private plan. it can't be due to some concern for the uninsured and uninsurable

[Ray R.]

If the power to tap ones phones is so dangerous, then how is the power to decide on what medical treatments ones recieves and when not?

Someone get Blue Cross/Blue Shield on the line. They probably know.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

4 years later and that still hasn't happened. as provinces control how they deliver care, quebec is always sited as one of the worse, with many theories as to why that is. canadians overwhelmingly do not want a two tiered system.

again, how about other countries? how about medicare? va care? shit, at least bring up the state mass. if you want to do a vs debate.

oh, have you come up with the rationed/denied care info yet?

Are you saying there is no private insurance in Canada?

Rationed, does not necessarily mean denied. It can mean delayed, defrayed, lowered quality etc. A resource can be rationed via charging for it, via making people wait to recieve it, via diluting it so each gets less of it, etc etc.
All systems ration limited resources in one way or another. They do so becuase resources are limited. whehter its done explicitly, or implicitly, is irrelevant. Unless you are contesting that healthcare is a unlimited resource, that there is an infinite number of doctors, then I dont see what your issue is.

[mikekerr3]

And where any of those who created, crafted, enforced, or made those policies ever tried, convicted, or held accountable?
Did Bull Connors ever go to jail his actions?
Did those who voted against the abolition of slavery in the US Congress ever go on trial? Did those who wrote laws banning interracial marriage ever stand in a court of law?
So again I ask, how exactly is government more accountable than than other entities such as for profit corporations?
The KKK, a private organisation, was hounded, investigated, and nearly broken by lawsuits, trials, and legal actions. Its leaders were incarcerated, fined, and ruined. Where the Senators, Congressmen or other government officials who supported them ever even tried?
Again this isnt about which side of the political spectrum you are on. Did joe Mccarthy ever stand trial for the lives he ruined? Did Stalin?
Given how largely unaccountable government is for the past actions it has taken, why would anyone give it more power and more opportunity to do evil?

This is the disconnect I dont understand. I remember people howling about the Patriot act, and yet a few years later we are considering giving the government the power to control our medical care? Really?

Even assuming This government would never do anything unseemly, what about the next? Or the one after?




If the power to tap ones phones is so dangerous, then how is the power to decide on what medical treatments ones recieves and when not?


Are you having trouble reading, that was in response to you saying that political policies are not objectively right or wrong, I was simply calling you on your BS, and stating political policies can be objectively wrong.

that was a particularly clumsy attempt to sidestep my point, if you do not have reading difficulties,

All those policies are now in the trash-can where they belonged, so the system worked, maybe not as well as we like but it works.

I Don't want the goverment to have the power to tap phomes as they please, but I would much rather they did it that a cooperation having the power to do so, both are dangerous but the latter is much more so than the former.


I would much rather have some Civil Service GS-4 deciding on my policy than, a outsourced clerk in India whose job depends on keeping costs down. I don't want the decision on whether I live or die to be decided on what the most profitable course for a corporation.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm curious as to why someone who purports to be in Costa Rica has such a vested interest in this issue.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I believe that fiction is self-evident in your slowly shifting argument.
A "everybody does it, both sides are bad" is the very definition of a nonpartisan stance..
Now you are confusing two different subjects.
Just becuase I dont buy into the absuridity that either side is perfect, or pure evil, doesnt mean I dont agree with one more than the other. I can recognise that both sides use the same tactics, and still beleive one side has a better idea. Both sides engage in hyperbole, distortions, lies, misstaements, and fictions. Both sides attempt to "rally thier base" while also winning convetrts, both sides childishly accuse the other of being petty, or unfair, or engaging in underhanded tactics.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I'm curious as to why someone who purports to be in Costa Rica has such a vested interest in this issue.

I am an american, isnt that enough?

[Slam_Bradley]

I am an american, isnt that enough?


That's fine. But it wasn't evident in any way.

[7thangel]

Are you saying there is no private insurance in Canada?

Rationed, does not necessarily mean denied. It can mean delayed, defrayed, lowered quality etc. A resource can be rationed via charging for it, via making people wait to recieve it, via diluting it so each gets less of it, etc etc.
All systems ration limited resources in one way or another. They do so becuase resources are limited. whehter its done explicitly, or implicitly, is irrelevant. Unless you are contesting that healthcare is a unlimited resource, that there is an infinite number of doctors, then I dont see what your issue is.
do you understand the term two tier system in regards to canada?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance
"Private health insurance is allowed, but the provincial governments allow it only for services that the public health plans do not cover; for example, semi-private or private rooms in hospitals and prescription drug plans. Canadians are free to use private insurance for elective medical services such as laser vision correction surgery, cosmetic surgery, and other non-basic medical procedures. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers. Private-sector services not paid for by the government account for nearly 30 percent of total health care spending."

[mikekerr3]

Now you are confusing two different subjects.
Just becuase I dont buy into the absuridity that either side is perfect, or pure evil, doesnt mean I dont agree with one more than the other. I can recognise that both sides use the same tactics, and still beleive one side has a better idea. Both sides engage in hyperbole, distortions, lies, misstaements, and fictions. Both sides attempt to "rally thier base" while also winning convetrts, both sides childishly accuse the other of being petty, or unfair, or engaging in underhanded tactics.

Except that on this subject your side has very little to offer but outright lies.

please give me and conservative objection to the Health care plans proposed that is not either innuendo or an outright lie. The only one i've heard is taxes and that exaggerated,

please give me one factaul reason, except greed that th health care system proposed is more faulty than the current system, I have outstanding heath care in the US provided by the Government, I would just like everyone to have the same.

[Ray R.]

I am an american, isnt that enough?

How do you like the socialized medicine in Costa Rica?

Costa Rica’s private hospitals and clinics offer high-quality medical care at a tiny fraction of its U.S. equivalent cost. In fact, due to Costa Rica’s beautiful surroundings, medical reputation and very lost costs, the country is rapidly becoming a prime destination for medical tourism.

As of late 2008, private insurance is available through INS, the government-owned insurance monopoly. Most plans cover dental work, optometry, and cosmetic surgery in the case of an accident, and neither pre-existing conditions nor annual check-ups are included. Prescription drugs, certain medical exams, sick visits and hospitalization are covered at 70% cost, and surgeon and aesthetician costs are covered at full cost. Currently, private medical insurance costs about $50-$100/month per person, depending on age, gender and other factors.

In addition to INS insurance, expats may also purchase international health care insurance from abroad, which will cover most private hospital costs. Be aware that these plans often cost more than their INS equivalents.

Many drugs (like birth control pills, high cholesterol medication, migraine medicine, etc.) are available in Costa Rica without a prescription, and pharmacists can easily and accurately diagnose and treat many common problems. If it is not an emergency, the first course of action is to head to your neighborhood pharmacy, and consult with the pharmacist (referred to as doctor or doctora) about your ailment. If the pharmacist determines that it is serious, he or she will send you to the nearest hospital for treatment.

Sounds horrible.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Are you having trouble reading, that was in response to you saying that political policies are not objectively right or wrong, I was simply calling you on your BS, and stating political policies can be objectively wrong.
.
And while I agree that they were wrong, that isnt objective, its subjective.
Its a moral and ethical value judgement, one which is neither universal nor objective.
.
that was a particularly clumsy attempt to sidestep my point, if you do not have reading difficulties,
.
It wasnt a sidestep, I was using your example to illustrate a point I had made earlier.

.
All those policies are now in the trash-can where they belonged, so the system worked, maybe not as well as we like but it works.
.

Sometimes, evetually and after a fashion. But the fact remains that it wasnt corporations that perpertrated those wrong, and theres no guarantee those policies couldnt come back.
My point was simply that the more power that is given to government, the more harm it can do. And throughout history it has tended to be governments, not corporations, or individuals that did the most harm to the most people. Unless you beleive that the government will never again do any harm, then I dont see why it makes sense to invest it with even more power and to keep for ourselves less.

.
I Don't want the goverment to have the power to tap phomes as they please, but I would much rather they did it that a cooperation having the power to do so, both are dangerous but the latter is much more so than the former..
Really? Can a corporation use your conversations to send you to jail? Can it use it to "prove" you are a traitor or a spy?


.[/QUOTE]
I would much rather have some Civil Service GS-4 deciding on my policy than, a outsourced clerk in India whose job depends on keeping costs down. I don't want the decision on whether I live or die to be decided on what the most profitable course for a corporation.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to what keeps the cost lowest for the people? A clerk may admit he was wrong or immoral, A clerk, acting on behalf of "the people" is only making "the hard choices necessary to do whats right for everyone". If a clerk denies you, you can sue to overturn his decision, if the government does then what recourse do you have?

Better a robber barron than an inquistor, the robber barron isnt invested with the power and righteousness of God.

[carabas]

2) The internet is not a public service provided by government. Nor is a computer, nor is a Bank.Money on the other hand is and always has been.

I would contend that national healthcare is how a government, rather than a society, decides to determines how to distribute the limited resources available.Those tresources aren't really that limited that they'll be stretched thin by providing them to everybody as opposed to just those that can pay. Another fallacy.

Secondly, I would contend that capitalism has a far better track record of efficiently utilising limited resources than any government than has ever existed.I have a really big surprise for you: the vast majority of countries with a single payer system are capitalistic.

My point was not that my choices should be imposed on others it was the exact opposite. My point was that I personally value the freedom to make that choice far more than I do any nominal guarantee to have that choice made for me, and that whether or not you agree with my choice is a direct result of your subjective valuation. You're not making a choice, you're being oh, frell it.

Furthermore I would point out that government has a far longer track record of not "doing the right thing" than do corporations. It was not a Corporation that killed 6 million jews in the holocaust,You'd be surprised. Fascism is all about furthering corporate interests and intertwining them with the state (among other things). People made a hell of a lot of money from teh holocaust back then.

It was not "predatory capitalism" which broke 10,000 treaties with the Native Nations, nor was it a for profit corporation which forcibly sterilised those demed "feeble" or "undesirable" in the 30s and 40s.Just because governments do evil shit all teh time does not exctly mean that corporations don't do that as well.

I would also point out, that if your insurance company doesnt " do the right thing" you can take action against them legally.Not really. Because they have far mor moneyto hire far better lawyer than you, and because they basically do this professionally. And it usually turns out that the insurance company is right and that you just didn't read the fine print closely enough. And because you are too busy being sick and bancrupt.
The government on the other hand is protected from lawsuits in almost all situations and those who make the decisions to "do the wrong thing" are rarely if ever held accountable for thier actions if in government. Governments always have to pay the piper when election time comes around.

Now given that Governments have no more propensity to act in what I consider to be a moral fashion than either individuals or corporations and are far harder to be made accountable when they are do not, I wonder why there is such passion to invest in government even greater power than it now has. Are American govenrments then so much more corrupt and inept than governments from all over the world, including Cuba, that can and do manage to provide health care for all of its citizens?

Again this is not an argument for or against national healthcare.Oh yes it is.
Its simply further illustration that this is not an issue of one side being right and the other wrong, but an issue in which which side you take will be determined by the value you place on different criteria.Og no, it isn't. Certainly not when your choices aren't based on values but irrational fears and misinformation.

[carabas]

No, its based on the fact that healthcare, however defined, is a finite resource. It is not unlimited. No matter what system you have, there are only so many doctors, pills, etc.Not really. One can always hire more.Supply and demand, really. In many single-payer countries now there are actually too many doctors. Medicin studies at universities have a cap on the number of students to keep the number of doctors runing around manageable. The idea that pills are somehow limited in supply is ludicrous. You simply have no idea of what you speak of when you talk about health care.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Except that on this subject your side has very little to offer but outright lies.

please give me and conservative objection to the Health care plans proposed that is not either innuendo or an outright lie. The only one i've heard is taxes and that exaggerated,
.
I dont beleive the government should have that much power. It would reduce my options, my abillity to choose freely what, if any insurance I have. It would place decisions in the hands of people who are less accountable than insurance companies, give me less recourse to appeal decisions made upon my behalf, and allow healthcare to become yet another political football to be thrown back and forth in an attempt for some overfed, bigheaded, self-centered poltician to attempt to win votes with. It would also create a justification for more intrusion of government into my life by giving a valid reason why my diet, and habits should be legislated in the name of controlling costs. Whether those are "cnservative" reaons or not, I dont know, they are simply my reasons. I also dont like the fact that few if any of those voting on legislation (and not just this legislation) ever read the bills they pass. (that goes for both parties, on all legislation) or that a few hundred people in washington think that they have the right to consolidate more power in the hands of less people. Especially when I see so much evidence that what power they already have is misused either due to incompetance or malice or both.


.

please give me one factaul reason, except greed that th health care system proposed is more faulty than the current system, I have outstanding heath care in the US provided by the Government, I would just like everyone to have the same.

Becuase its more prone to polticisation, more easily corrupted by fewer people, and in the event soemthing does go wrong, (and somehting always goes wrong) I as a citizen have less recourse than I do now. There is a greater probability of waste due to nepotism, favoritism and fraud, and I dont trust anyone who manages to get elected to office since by defintion one has to be exceedingly arrogant, facile, decietful to win.
Furthermore any plan with a public option would end up crowding out private insurers because government does not and can not compete on a level playing field with any entity that can not forcibly remove additional capital via taxation.

[Rev. Calibos]

An easy mistake to make, but in fact rhetoric is the opposite of "ideas", a means of preventing ideas and the truth about ideas from coming to light by pushing people's emotional buttons.

For example: "let's kill all the Malaysians!" is a rhetorical figure. While it functions because it contains and links the concepts "kill" and "Malaysians", its primary goal is to incite action.

And I rather think that history bears out the fact that such rhetoric is a great deal more dangerous than guns.


Except in this instance only one member of the group actually showed up.

How influential could his words have been if only ONE of them 'took them to heart' as it were?

And of course that's only if we assume just what the meaning was behind the statement:

Nope. I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.

You say, 'Why would you do that?' That our country could be saved.

Because, of course, he meant 'death by shotgun', right?

'Well, that's not important, what's important is that he is PRAYING for his death...'

Which, again, leads us to wonder just where the other members of the church are at and why they aren't arming themselves in a similar manner.



It wasn't overlooked. It was ridiculed as the kind of thing that only the willfully ignorant would say; well, them and the rhetoricians trying to cover their tracks for the evil that they do.

Oh, so you can pinpoint just what drove the killer to carry out the act.

Excellent. Tell us just what it was, use generous detail.

Was it O'Reilly or an Anti-Abortion group? (and if so, which one?)

No. They don't just exist. They're not born like that. They're turned into that.

Exactly. 'My kid was perfectly fine before he picked up that controller and started playing Mortal Kombat/Grand Theft Auto/(insert controversial video game of the week here), that damned game was the reason he went on that spree, hyuck hyuck.'


Ahh, no, the kid probably had some issues to start with Mom n' Dad, sorry, lol.


If, however, one's aim is to excuse the hatemongering tossers of the far right, best to act like rhetoric isn't one of them, eh?; and best to pretend that those rhetoricians aren't in fact hand in glove with the people who organize mob violence, eh?


Right, right.....which group was he acting for again?

This would be a lot easier if we can objectively look at just who's behind what instead of blaming everything on some shadowy non-organization.

'It was the FAR RIGHT what done this!!!'

The 'Far Right'? Really?

'Yep....it was those members of the FAR RIGHT that bear responsibility for this....'

Awesome. Where are their headquarters? Can we send them an angry letter? Maybe a website perhaps?

No? And why is that?

Because 'THE FAR RIGHT!!!!' isn't an actual group Paul. Nor is there an official 'PRO LIFE!!!!' group, sorry.

Specifics Paul, specifics. Who said what and DID what to influence these folks?
Again, use generous detail.

Aha! The first flat out lie.

There's no evidence that video games actually promote lunatic violence. None whatsoever.

The stealth lie is the phrase "Fox blowhard". Here we detect the trace of rhetoric. They can't actually be responsible for inciting violence if they're only "blowhards".
But only a fool would say that, at least, if they actually meant it. Because they're quite obviously part of a deliberate propaganda campaign intended to incite hatred for political purposes.

Context Paul, context.....if you would actually read my posts and, oh, I don't know, turn your 'outrage' meter down a notch you'll see that I actually find foisting blame on video games/damnable rock lyrics/funny books to be comical and offensive.......no lies I'm afraid.




And another rhetorical misdirection.

It doesn't, of course, matter one whit if the sermon was the sole cause or just a contributory cause. It was, nevertheless, a cause; a deliberate incitement to violence

And unless you're a complete idiot, you recognize that people who gather together with such a preacher are all already evil bastards; and evil bastards who weren't born that way, they were made that way by other evil bastards; and that the preacher is the worst of the evil bastards, because he's got an audience of people to whom enough damage has been done that they're a danger to the rest of us, and he's inciting them to murder.

Right, which explains the dozens and dozens of fellow church goers who joined him and armed themselves and....

Oh wait, where were they Paul?

I guess they must have missed that sermon, right? :rolleyes:

At which point the interesting question is: why the fuck would you want to make excuses for this shit?

Nope, nobody is making excuses Paul, I just find it comical when people try to dream-gineer the REAL villain behind the senseless acts of others.

Surely it was GTA that caused my boy to bring that gun to school. Those WWF performers made my kid hit his cousin with a chair. Superman and DC comics are to blame for my kid jumping off the roof wearing a towel....


Umm,nope, here on Earth it's their fault, sorry. :smile:

[Matt Algren]

I would like to apologize for bringing "Are you saying..." questions into the thread.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Money on the other hand is and always has been.

Those tresources aren't really that limited that they'll be stretched thin by providing them to everybody as opposed to just those that can pay. Another fallacy.
.
All resources are finite. Period. Except possibly time.

.

I have a really big surprise for you: the vast majority of countries with a single payer system are capitalistic.
.
The healthcare sytems aren´t though.

.

You're not making a choice, you're being oh, frell it.
.
Under several of the plans being discussed there would be a mandatory requirement to have coverage. Right now I can choose to have none. That is indeed a choice.

.

You'd be surprised. Fascism is all about furthering corporate interests and intertwining them with the state (among other things). People made a hell of a lot of money from teh holocaust back then.
.
Becuase they had the power of government backing them.
.

Just because governments do evil shit all teh time does not exctly mean that corporations don't do that as well.
.
I agree, the difference is that governments are less accountable when they do evil shit.
Im not saying either corporations or governments are "good" or beneficient, Im saying that its easier for governments to get away with it.

.

Not really. Because they have far mor moneyto hire far better lawyer than you, and because they basically do this professionally. And it usually turns out that the insurance company is right and that you just didn't read the fine print closely enough. And because you are too busy being sick and bancrupt.
Governments always have to pay the piper when election time comes around.
.
The US government, in most circumstances can not be held legally liable for what it does. In most circumstances the government can not even be sued for damages. Also the US government employs more lawyers than any corporation on earth.
.

Are American govenrments then so much more corrupt and inept than governments from all over the world, including Cuba, that can and do manage to provide health care for all of its citizens?
.
A government that can manage your healtcare or give you healthcare can just as easily refuse you healtcare.

.

Og no, it isn't. Certainly not when your choices aren't based on values but irrational fears and misinformation.

To beleive that a government can and may misuse its power is far from irrational.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Not really. One can always hire more.Supply and demand, really. In many single-payer countries now there are actually too many doctors. Medicin studies at universities have a cap on the number of students to keep the number of doctors runing around manageable. The idea that pills are somehow limited in supply is ludicrous. You simply have no idea of what you speak of when you talk about health care.
It taks years to train a doctor. It takes time to make pills. Doctors especially are an inelastic commodity.

[carabas]

Becuase its more prone to polticisation, more easily corrupted by fewer people, and in the event soemthing does go wrong, (and somehting always goes wrong) I as a citizen have less recourse than I do now. There is a greater probability of waste due to nepotism, favoritism and fraud, and I dont trust anyone who manages to get elected to office since by defintion one has to be exceedingly arrogant, facile, decietful to win.
Furthermore any plan with a public option would end up crowding out private insurers because government does not and can not compete on a level playing field with any entity that can not forcibly remove additional capital via taxation.*sigh* You simply do not even remotely understand how single-payer, socialised medicine works. And the more you ramble on, the more I think you know even less about how the American way does not work.
The goal of single-payer is to provide as much provide healthcare as possibe, regardles of who needs it.
The goal of the American system is to provide as little as possible, regardles of who needs it.

[sneggz]

. There are tradeoffs to each. Typically, (and I recognise that this is a gross generalisation) For profit systems tend to be more innovative, more efficient, and more responsive to patient (or consumer) demands. . Government controlled systems tend to be more equal, more standardised, and more suuceptible to organisational inertia.

Bullshit. For profit want less innovation. They want you to stay on the system for ever and drain your money.

Not for profit wants to treat you and get you the hell off so they dont have to keep paying for your treatments.

. Anecdotally, many canadians come to the US for treatments, while very few Americans go to canada for free healthcare.
You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that Canadian nationalized health care is for Canadian citizens only?

[Paul McEnery]

I dont beleive the government should have that much power. It would reduce my options, my abillity to choose freely what, if any insurance I have.

It very obviously ads to your options.

Stop lying.


It would place decisions in the hands of people who are less accountable than insurance companies

This is not true anywhere in the developed world.

Stop lying.


, give me less recourse to appeal decisions made upon my behalf,

Another flat lie.


and allow healthcare to become yet another political football

And that's just dumb. The only reason healthcare is a political football is because creeps want to deny it to 20% of the population.


to be thrown back and forth in an attempt for some overfed, bigheaded, self-centered poltician to attempt to win votes with. It would also create a justification for more intrusion of government into my life by giving a valid reason why my diet, and habits should be legislated in the name of controlling costs.

And that's dumber still, since that's exactly what private insurance companies already do, and something no national healthcare system in the world actually does.


Whether those are "cnservative" reaons or not, I dont know, they are simply my reasons.

No they're not.

They're big fat lies put about by insurance companies. Either you unintelligently chose to swallow them, or you're another one of these nasty bastards brownshirting up the townhall meetings.

Just like them, you've already played the nazi card but, just like them, that still doesn't tell us whether you're a fool or a patsy.


Furthermore any plan with a public option would end up crowding out private insurers because government does not and can not compete on a level playing field with any entity that can not forcibly remove additional capital via taxation.

Are you by any chance suggesting that the current private insurance system is so insanely wasteful and dedicated to fleecing consumers that it couldn't possibly compete against a well-organized socialized infrastructure?

Because if you are, you've just made the case for a well-organized socialized infrastructure.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Bullshit. For profit want less innovation. They want you to stay on the system for ever and drain your money.

Not for profit wants to treat you and get you the hell off so they dont have to keep paying for your treatments.

It was, by and large, for profit companies that created most of the medical innovations we enjoy today. The profit motive entices people to innovate, so that they can make money.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

*sigh* You simply do not even remotely understand how single-payer, socialised medicine works. And the more you ramble on, the more I think you know even less about how the American way does not work.
The goal of single-payer is to provide as much provide healthcare as possibe, regardles of who needs it.
The goal of the American system is to provide as little as possible, regardles of who needs it.
The goal of the american systems, is to win customers by controlling costs and offering services people want at a price they want to pay. It is not perfect, no. However I do not see anywhere near the type of discovery process, research budgets, or new discoveries coming from socialised systems as come from the american systems.
The goal of the Americans systems is to make money, since the insurance companies and hospitals can not force you to spend that money they must entice you to do so. They must compete for it. Granted theres not enough competition, primaly IMO becuase of the rules restricting competition to itra-state. However its a damn site more than would exist under a system where I can not take my business elsewhere.

[Slam_Bradley]

The goal of the american systems, is to win customers by controlling costs and offering services people want at a price they want to pay. It is not perfect, no. However I do not see anywhere near the type of discovery process, research budgets, or new discoveries coming from socialised systems as come from the american systems.
The goal of the Americans systems is to make money, since the insurance companies and hospitals can not force you to spend that money they must entice you to do so. They must compete for it. Granted theres not enough competition, primaly IMO becuase of the rules restricting competition to itra-state. However its a damn site more than would exist under a system where I can not take my business elsewhere.


And which system would that be? Because none of the proposals for the U.S. would prohibit you from having private health insurance.

[sneggz]

It was, by and large, for profit companies that created most of the medical innovations we enjoy today. The profit motive entices people to innovate, so that they can make money.
Really? How many medical breakthroughs/research are funded by the government versus funded by insurance?

And how about answering the rest of my previous post?

[carabas]

All resources are finite. Period. Except possibly time.Not as finite as you would have them.

The healthcare sytems aren´t though.So?

Under several of the plans being discussed there would be a mandatory requirement to have coverage. Right now I can choose to have none. That is indeed a choice.You can choose to walk off a tall building or stop a speeding train with a headbuttt and hope for the best as well, but sometimes people do have to be protecetd from themselves.

Becuase they had the power of government backing them.And American companies do not? In what universe?

I agree, the difference is that governments are less accountable when they do evil shit.
Im not saying either corporations or governments are "good" or beneficient, Im saying that its easier for governments to get away with it. Generally not true.

The US government, in most circumstances can not be held legally liable for what it does. In most circumstances the government can not even be sued for damages. Also the US government employs more lawyers than any corporation on earthBig corporation in most instances can't be held accountable either. Not succesfully anyway. Not in America where greed is the #1 religion. It's easier in countries where corporations don't count as a legal person.

A government that can manage your healtcare or give you healthcare can just as easily refuse you healtcare.That really is not how it works. The government doesn't even manage it. They just pay for it. All of it, not on a case by case basis.

To beleive that a government can and may misuse its power is far from irrational.To live in certainty of eventual bancrupcy for fear of what a gornment MIGHT do isn't really ratioal behaviour either.

Oh, just occured to me... You live in Costa Rica wher you have socialised health care. Why were you bragging about choosing not not have insurance and eventuammy face bancrupcy hen you are better provided for than the vast mojority of Americans?

It taks years to train a doctor. It takes time to make pills. Doctors especially are an inelastic commodity.But they train them continuously, year in, year out. If worst come to worst, you simply import them.
And really, the pharmaceutical industry multinationals know how to mass produce pills so that everybody gets some. Or did you have quaint visions of 19th century style government run pill factories?

[howyadoin]

And how about answering the rest of my previous post?Good luck with that. He seems to be quite selective in which posts he responds to.

[7thangel]

The goal of the american systems, is to win customers by controlling costs and offering services people want at a price they want to pay. It is not perfect, no. However I do not see anywhere near the type of discovery process, research budgets, or new discoveries coming from socialised systems as come from the american systems.
The goal of the Americans systems is to make money, since the insurance companies and hospitals can not force you to spend that money they must entice you to do so. They must compete for it. Granted theres not enough competition, primaly IMO becuase of the rules restricting competition to itra-state. However its a damn site more than would exist under a system where I can not take my business elsewhere.

lol, you keep making statements without backing it up. you say

"I do not see anywhere near the type of discovery process, research budgets, or new discoveries coming from socialized systems as come from the american systems. "
and yet you've proven time and time again that you don't do any research, at all. so this statement means absolutely nothing. again, evidence please

damn, the whole statement deserves evidence....

evidence please*

*it's getting tiring to ask for this, do us all a favour and do the research and provide the links before you give your opinion. it's really not that hard. shit, the 'richest' nation on earth should make it easy to find the evidence, don't be lazy*

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

And which system would that be? Because none of the proposals for the U.S. would prohibit you from having private health insurance.

No, but many would require me to have insurance, which I do not agree with.

In addition as I mentioned above,the idea that a "public option" would "increase competition" is simply illogical IMO. As I said a government funded entity can not compete on a level playing field becuase its "competitors" do not have the power to take additional capital via taxation.
Let me put it this way,. the idea behind anti-monopoly regulation is that a large enough company, can aford to operate at a loss untill its competitors are driven out of business. Can you really think of any entity that can operate at a loss longer than the US gov? Just as the postal service can offer the same services cheaper than private companies despite that service costing the USPS more to produce becuase it can tap into the government tax revenues; a "public option" could (and in the case of medicare does) undercut private market competitors because it doesnt have to make a profit or even break even.

In the long term this will tend to drive private market competitors out of business. When coupled with the power to mandate coverage options to private market insurers, what you are talking about is, essentially, a predatory and monpolistic entity with unrivaled power to engage in anti-competitive actions.
When you add to that the very real probabillity that the decisions made by such an entity would be politically, rather than market (ie consumer) driven, what we are essentially talking about is fannie mae and freddie mac writ large.

Finally, any decisions made by such an entity would be essentially unchallengable, since the federal government is protected and shielded from lawsuits by law.

So not only would it tend to drive private insurance companies out of business over time, it would be impossible to challenge the decisions made by such a company in the same way you can with current market insurance. If you think its hard to get a private insurance carrier to admit its wrong think about how hard it is to make the government do so.

[carabas]

give me less recourse to appeal decisions made upon my behalf, and allow healthcare to become yet another political football to be thrown back and forth in an attempt for some overfed, bigheaded, self-centered poltician to attempt to win votes with.
No decision are made by government folks on my behalf. At least not as far as my health is concerned.

And political football... any politician would commit career suicide if he as much as appeared to be seriously trying to mess with healthcare..

Which is probably why the Republicans are pulling out all the stops on this one. Obama succeeds, and manages to seriously improve American healthcare by partly socialising it, then it's game over. No more Republican party in power for decades on end, no matter how inept future Democrats will be.

[Paul McEnery]

Except in this instance only one member of the group actually showed up.

Which in what way excuses the preacher or anyone in his church?


Because, of course, he meant 'death by shotgun', right?

Too bad you weren't around in 1170. Henry II could have used an advocate like you.


Oh, so you can pinpoint just what drove the killer to carry out the act.

Really? You're that desperate to pretend that the multifactorial causes don't include talk radio, the Fox network, and religious fanatics?

Why would you want to pretend they had no input to events?


Exactly. 'My kid was perfectly fine before he picked up that controller and started playing Mortal Kombat/Grand Theft Auto/(insert controversial video game of the week here), that damned game was the reason he went on that spree, hyuck hyuck.'


Ahh, no, the kid probably had some issues to start with Mom n' Dad, sorry, lol.

And while we're playing let's pretend, so we can deflect blame away from the guilty in the media and the churches, let's consider some other important non-existent excuses:

My kid never killed anyone at school before he overdosed on Sunny Delight.
He was a quiet man until he started with those sudoku puzzles.
and
Personally, I blame his third cousin twice-removed for being negligent when he was a baby.


Right, right.....which group was he acting for again?

Since he was a member of anti-abortion groups, you're not really helping yourself here.

This would be a lot easier if we can objectively look at just who's behind what instead of blaming everything on some shadowy non-organization.

It would be better if you chose to be honest, don't you think? Because we're not talking about shadowy fuck all, are we. We're talking about quite blatant political, religious, and media organizations that anyone with an IQ over 20 can easily name.


The 'Far Right'? Really?

Ah, now we've come down to it. You want to act like the far right doesn't even exist, and therefore your opinions are just your own, and the lies in which you participate have no consequence.


'Yep....it was those members of the FAR RIGHT that bear responsibility for this....'

Awesome. Where are their headquarters? Can we send them an angry letter? Maybe a website perhaps?

Seriously. Don't be a tosser.

[carabas]

No, but many would require me to have insurance, which I do not agree with.

In addition as I mentioned above,the idea that a "public option" would "increase competition" is simply illogical IMO. As I said a government funded entity can not compete on a level playing field becuase its "competitors" do not have the power to take additional capital via taxation.Level playing fields aren't really a capitalist thing anyway.

Thing is, the 'public option' would somewhat compete with the comapnies, driving prices somewhat down, forcing them to act just a wee bit more humane in their death panesl, but ultimately the goal of the public option is not to drive the companies out of busines and wouild simply stop driving up the competition whena desireable/acceptable level was reached

[mikekerr3]

Better a robber barron than an inquistor, the robber barron isnt invested with the power and righteousness of God.

Don't see many Inquisitors in the civil Service, are there a lot of them in Costa rica, it seemed a pretty nice place when I was there?

The goverment has no motivation to harm my health, as I have said they provide my coverage now. wha reason whould I have to assume that the goverent would suddenly want to stark killing of it's citzens,?

A Company does have motivation to let me die it's called profit, I don't like to bet my like that a bureaucrat in a company will consistently seek to do what's best for me but not the company.

[mikekerr3]

Not really. One can always hire more.Supply and demand, really. In many single-payer countries now there are actually too many doctors. Medicin studies at universities have a cap on the number of students to keep the number of doctors runing around manageable. The idea that pills are somehow limited in supply is ludicrous. You simply have no idea of what you speak of when you talk about health care.

US medical schools have been throttling the number students for years to keep salaries up, Many people who are qualified can't get admittance due to artificial scarcity in that profession.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Don't see many Inquisitors in the civil Service, are there a lot of them in Costa rica, it seemed a pretty nice place when I was there?
.

No idea, never been to a hospital here. Im a consultant and have lived in about 18 countries in the last 10 years.
.


The goverment has no motivation to harm my health, as I have said they provide my coverage now. what reason whould I have to assume that the goverent would suddenly want to stark killing of it's citzens,?
A Company does have motivation to let me die it's called profit, I don't like to bet my like that a bureaucrat in a company will consistently seek to do what's best for me but not the company.
.

The same reason you claim an insurance company would, to save money. Or "bend the cost curve" as they say.
Onedifference being, an insurance company isn´t performing a "public service" by doing so. I find it amusing you wouldn´t "bet your life on a company bureaucrat" yet somehiow think a "government bureaucrat" is markedly different.
The other of course being its much harder to hold the government accountable, Just ask the PSA and the men who underwent the Tuskeegee Syphilis experiments. (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html)



For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

[Paul McEnery]

Level playing fields aren't really a capitalist thing anyway.

To be fair, if it wasn't for the absence of a level playing field, England wouldn't have won the Ashes.