Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

another right wing lunatic prattling on about "death panels"


Azazello1313
 Share

Recommended Posts

You posted a number you made up, man. :wacko: And you admitted it.

 

Now you're indignant because I won't go back and cross-reference three of your links to see if you're right this time.

 

What's your official number now so I can shoot it down in 30 seconds?

 

I admitted to remembering it incorrectly, it was an honest mistake shown by the actually number being more in the favor of my argument than the old number from last year. I was actually remember an older gallop poll from last summer. Still, I've given you linked information from this summer, and you choose to bury your head in the sand. I'm through discussing this with you unless you start looking at the data provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I admitted to remembering it incorrectly, it was an honest mistake shown by the actually number being more in the favor of my argument than the old number from last year. I was actually remember an older gallop poll from last summer. Still, I've given you linked information from this summer, and you choose to bury your head in the sand. I'm through discussing this with you unless you start looking at the data provided.

 

What's your official number now so I can shoot it down in 30 seconds?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when a government plan that DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A PROFIT can undercut the costs of my privately owned plan which as a business has to show a profit,thereby putting it out of business,that does indeed make my point.How can I keep a plan that will no longer exist?

 

not sure were you live but HMO's are non profit entities.

 

Just like how the US Mail has put FedEx and UPS out of business.

 

HMOs and the post office don't have to turn a profit, but they do have to operate on their own budget. they can't just tap into the taxpayer well whenever they want to, which is the real issue.

 

fedex and UPS would have put the post office out of business if not for government granted monopolies. it's government created distortions tilting the playing field that keeps them in business. so if there's a lesson to be learned from that example, I'm not sure it's the one you're getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a guy that sound like he supports health care reform:

 

"health insurance... has mutated into something it was never intended to be, and it is costing us much more than it should. "

 

I agree with that guy. Health care needs to be reformed and un-mutates into a form where patient care is the focus.

 

That is not contrary to anything I've stated here. Health insurance has mutated into something it was never intended to be. It like all other insurance should be to pay for catastrophes, not doctors visits or a prescription of penicillin. I do we need health care reform, I just don't agree with the plan currently being put forward, or for that matter the timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HMOs and the post office don't have to turn a profit, but they do have to operate on their own budget. they can't just tap into the taxpayer well whenever they want to, which is the real issue.

so maybe they need to quite paying the board of trusties and "consultants" millions of dollars?? now i am in no way saying the government can do it better but reading this drivel about how hard HMO's have it is just plane insane. The already restrict services and will withhold services even if the doctor says you need it.

Edited by Yukon Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so maybe they need to quite paying the board of trusties and "consultants" millions of dollars?? now i am in no way saying the government can do it better but reading this drivel about how hard HMO's have it is just plane insane. The already restrict services and will withhold services even if the doctor says you need it.

 

Yukon you don't understand. A rich life is worth more than a poor life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

93% based on this polling data.

 

93% of "insured" rate their "coverage" as good.

Do you not see how this is completely different fromyour originally stated "Americans" percentage? And do you notice how this is not a rating of the insurance, but of the coverage and how it doesn't discuss the cost?

 

According to your own poll link, insurance in America is so awesome that "63% of voters agree with President Obama that “we must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”

 

It's not what you said originally in multiple ways, and it proves my point.

Edited by AtomicCEO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

93% of "insured" rate their "coverage" as good.

Do you not see how this is completely different fromyour originally stated "Americans" percentage?

 

his original statement was "Those pushing for health care reform fail to realize that 85% are happy with their own insurance plans." if I say, "85% of those polled were happy with their honda accord", would you feel all smart and sanctimonious if you could prove that 85% of all americans don't even have an accord?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

93% of "insured" rate their "coverage" as good.

Do you not see how this is completely different fromyour originally stated "Americans" percentage? And do you notice how this is not a rating of the insurance, but of the coverage and how it doesn't discuss the cost?

 

According to your own poll link, insurance in America is so awesome that "63% of voters agree with President Obama that “we must make it a priority to give every single American quality affordable health care.”

 

It's not what you said originally in multiple ways, and it proves my point.

 

The only point you are proving is you are either an idiot or have serious reading comprehension issues. Show me where I disagree with helping those who really can not afford medical care, but do not qualify for either medicare or medicaid. I've actually said just the opposite. We need to do something for the 1.5% of Americans that truly can not afford insurance and do not have some other for of coverage, I just don't think the plan currently proposed is the right plan, and it appears the more that Americans read it and learn about it, the more they agree with me, that Obamacare sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Jon] The Government mandates everyone have insurance on their car. [/stewart]

 

Because God forbid you put a small crack in wiegie's ricer minivan bumper and can't pay for it, but it's okay to die of cancer or a heart attack. We're f'n America....we love our cars more than our fellow man!!! F Yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's happening. That's why this thread title is about "death panels". People are clearly getting educated on the facts.

 

Clearly.

 

A majority of Americans (55%) believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants even though no proposals currently under negotiation would do so. An equally high number (54%) believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system, although there is also no actual proposal for that, either. Additionally, 50% believe that the overhaul will use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A majority of Americans (55%) believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants even though no proposals currently under negotiation would do so. An equally high number (54%) believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system, although there is also no actual proposal for that, either. Additionally, 50% believe that the overhaul will use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions

 

those "stupid" americans may be smarterer at reading between the lines than you are.

 

the AP's latest "fact check" article. Written by Calvin Woodward, it could just as easily have been produced for the campaign's "Setting the Record Straight" page, except that Woodward's article acknowledges that the public is opposed to many aspects of ObamaCare--or, as Woodward puts it, "The judgment is harsh in a new poll. . . . Harsh, but not based on facts."

 

Yet Woodward's "refutations" are easily rebutted by pro-ObamaCare sources. Here they are, in order:

 

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

 

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

 

The end-of-life provision is something of a red herring. There are legitimate concerns that it would give doctors a financial incentive to encourage patients to sign pull-the-plug orders, and that patients would feel pressured to do so by the doctor's authority. But it's true that they would not be forced.

 

The more worrisome question is whether ObamaCare would lead to government rationing of treatment. Here is what Obama himself said on this question in an April interview with David Leonhardt of the New York Times:

 

Obama: The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

 

Leonhardt: So how do you--how do we deal with it?

 

Obama: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

 

In fairness, Obama did not seem to mean it when he called for a "democratic conversation," but that's no reason to doubt that he meant the rest of what he said.

 

Woodward continues:

 

THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

 

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

 

Let us stipulate that this column does not care for the scapegoating of immigrants, including illegal ones. That, however, is separate from the question of whether the bill would in fact cover illegal immigrants. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus think it will, Roll Call reported last month:

 

 

A CHC member, who requested not to be identified, said the group is urging Pelosi to ensure that everyone--including illegal immigrants--will be able to receive services as part of comprehensive reform.

 

"We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," said one CHC member.

 

Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, the Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill--as drafted--doesn't prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care.

 

"Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens," said the Hispanic lawmaker.

 

Woodward's third point:

 

THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.

 

THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

 

Here is what Obama himself said in a 2003 speech to a union audience:

 

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.

 

What Obama is proposing in place of single-payer is something called the "public option," which would put the federal government into the insurance business but not immediately give it a monopoly. Earlier this week, on the Web site of the left-liberal American Prospect, Mark Schmitt explained how this became the dominant Democratic idea:

 

 

Following [John] Edwards' lead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. . . . It was a real high-wire act--to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative. It had a very positive political effect: It got all the candidates except Kucinich onto basically the same health reform structure, unlike in 1992, when every Democrat had his or her own gimmick. And the public option/insurance exchange structure was ambitious.

 

But the downside is that the political process turns out to be as resistant to stealth single-payer as it is to plain-old single-payer.

 

The question is: Is "stealth single payer" stealthy enough to get by Calvin Woodward, or stealthy enough that he thought he could get it past his readers?

 

Woodward's final item is muddled enough that one can't quite say he's taking sides;

 

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.

 

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan. But the procedure would be paid for with dollars from beneficiary premiums, not from federal funds. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.

 

Opponents say the prohibition on federal money for the procedure is merely a bookkeeping trick and what matters is that Washington would allow abortion to be covered under government-subsidized insurance.

 

Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.

 

Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.

 

The fault here may lie more with the poll's author than with Woodward. The distinction between "taxpayer dollars" and "dollars from beneficiary premiums" not only is arguably "a bookkeeping trick," as Woodward acknowledges; it is completely immaterial to those on the antiabortion side of this debate. They do not want the government to express approval of abortion by funding it, regardless of where the money nominally comes from.

 

Writing in Slate, Meredith Simons suggests what seems an expedient remedy: keep abortion out of government insurance, and let private philanthropy fill the breach. But she notes:

 

Progressives hate the idea of a private abortion fund. They argue that abortion is a medical procedure like any other and should be covered by any insurance plan, public or private. Nobody has to set up charities for appendectomies--why do it for abortions?

 

In other words, for the pro-abortion side, like the antiabortion side, this is a matter of pure symbolism. They do not want the government to express disapproval of abortion by declining to fund it, even if there would be no practical effect on cost or availability. If, as Woodward writes, the legislation "would allow coverage for abortion in the public plan," then this question has been resolved in favor of the pro-abortion side.

 

so, by not being prohibited, abortion is in fact covered by the government subsidized insurance. by not specifically mentioning illegals, those who advocate for illegals think they're in good shape to have illegals covered. the very designers of the plan created as a way to get to "stealth single payer". I think those stupid polling majorities may be more correct than you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's happening. That's why this thread title is about "death panels". People are clearly getting educated on the facts.

 

I've never called them that, and frankly that is pretty far down the list as to why I disagree with the current proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As health care costs continue to increase, more and more small businesses will not be able to provide health insurance to their employees.

Those people should just go to work for big companies then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

She is hot BTW. I'm normally for state's rights but if we are looking at nationalizing health care this should at least be discussed. I have no idea what if any mandates Texas put on the insurance industry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading (again) Atlas Shruged right now. It's funny/scary how often Rand's descriptions mirror the health care arguments we're all hearing today. :wacko:

How do you reconcile Rand's dismissal of faith as "anti-reason" with your dedication to her "rational egoism" philosophy? These two things seem to me to be antithetical in your case. Surely Christ was in many ways the anti-Rand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you reconcile Rand's dismissal of faith as "anti-reason" with your dedication to her "rational egoism" philosophy? These two things seem to me to be antithetical in your case. Surely Christ was in many ways the anti-Rand?

 

One need not digest the whole to reap nutrition from a good meal - ya still gotta poop some stuff out. :wacko: I think of Rand's writing as dealing with those things "rendered unto Ceasar."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information