Mod Note: Gustav the reason for your two posts being deleted is because they contain nothing but personal references. There's an open government subforum. You can make a thread there. Or just PM me. Just because your posts are universally recognized as quirky and amusing--hiding some real intelligence within them--doesn't give you the de facto right to post whatever gibberish you want. Take it to the appropriate forum.
This post below: Was in response to this post from you I will go slowly. 1. Your initial point was that opponents to the bill are saying that Hawking not have survived under the proposed bill. Dude it right there in the above quote those are your words, after this quote you linked an article. I read the article. Then, I responded in the first quoted statement above. 2. You then responded with this: Two things present themselves; first, this was not your original statement you posted with the link. It’s right there you cannot deny it and others will see it. Therefore, once again you tried to change the argument to create a situation where you look good. Why, because you got your ass handed back to you. Second, after you tried to change the argument you went back to the original argument. This argument was what prompted my response 3. In my response, I wrote the following: This response was to your basic premise that single payer, socialized medicine, universal health care; whatever you choose to call it would work if practiced. In the specific case of Hawking, I clearly stated that yes it did work. However, you are misrepresenting the truth because you know as well as I do that he would have survived in a private health care system. That was my first point in response to your point of which I backed it up. Common sense, I don’t need 3,000 references and 37,000 word responses to this, the point was made through common sense. At this point, we should be okay and you cannot go back on this as I have used YOUR WORDS. 4. I next begin discussing that Hawking probably would have survived Obamacare also given that he was just 21 when he contracted ALS. This was in response to your post, once again. As I correctly interpreted that at least part of your assertion was that Obamacare would work in the US like it did for Hawking in England. I was agreeing with you based on the premise that Hawking was 21 when he contracted ALS. Given that the president has proposed “Medpac”, more known as death panels by the right, I was agreeing with you again that most likely Hawking would have been alright because he was 21 when he contracted ALS. Has it sunk in, yet? 5. In short, I did defend my statements and spoke specifically. I directly responded to your post. And yet, you responded with this: You think that you are challenging me. You posted a link to an article with the comments added to it that is cited above and you think you are challenging me. The lack of profoundness is staggering to me. You posted a link with comment, I responded to the link and comment, and YOU think you are challenging me. Okay, I must be the only one that sees the idiocy in that. Furthermore, you accuse me of resorting to tactics lacking in argument by only attacking you, and then you respond to a specific thing (In the US, he might not have survived that is not clear…..) that I pointed out. So which is it, are you challenging me as evident in your delusional mind that I refuse to be specific, or am I being specific? Once again, joe you have failed. You do the same things repeatedly. In fact, I will bet that I already know how you will respond to this. Naturally, it would be foolish to state it. But I am pretty sure I know how you will respond, if you do. But you did do something right, you picked up another minion. You can take heart in that joe. Yes, another poster speaking to me through you. What more does a cult leader need? As for that minion, the statement was made that I only responded after you framed the argument. Newsflash to all minions of joe, the framing of the entire argument is already flawed. The whole thing is set false grounds to begin with. With regards to the debate on health care the thing that strikes me most is; why are we even having a debate? Government should not be involved in personal affair. Death panels & private insurance versus public options doesn’t have a place in public debate if we are adherent to the Constitution. As it was designed as a protector from government not each other, which is exactly what the argument is framed around class versus class. This is totally in contradiction to how this country began. Imagine we started from a premise of “Don’t Tread on Me”, and now we are determined to end it from a premise “Help Me, I Can’t”. Still willing to go to work for your minions you replied to my post questioning your ability to comprehend with this: I did support my claims of which were only responding to your original link and comment. Furthermore, you responded to this (according to your delusional mind) unsupported claim. I really hate to break this to you, but you are not an independent American who does his own thinking. You are a sycophantic hack, and cult leader, nothing more. No, they don’t. They regurgitate talking points memos from ______, ______, ______, ______, ________, & _________. You fill in the blanks. If they really used reason why hasn’t anyone bothered to ask why this issue is even being debated? They don’t, nor do you, because the argument has been framed by an already flawed premise I don’t fear or hate. I defy you to prove this wrong. To disagree with our government, your premise is to disagree with each other based on partisan politics. Again, I defy you to prove this wrong. Dude, you wouldn’t know truth if it sat on your nose. Fortunately you are hardly a prophet, but thanks for your prophesy. By your own sycophantic nature this is impossible. And alas, not atlas, I did support my claims. Not only do I know it, but so do you, or you wouldn't have responded to them. So, my original statement of your having reading comprehension problems is still left for conjecture. * http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14medpac.html?_r=1&ref=health
An obvious question Mr. Galt, I'm just curious: How much do you think Stephen Hawking's private health insurance premium would be?
That's irrelevant. No one is claiming that he wouldn't have, and no such claim is part of the debate here. (although it is possible, depending: for example if he were poor or, as a teenager and young man, uninsured in the US, he might easily have lacked the level of care that has been critical in saving him from bouts of pneumonia, etc). Evidence of Hawking's greater risk under the US system: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Con...of-Nations--Updating-an-Earlier-Analysis.aspx
People disagree with the merits of the bill, 1000+ pages long, that is so unclear the most outragous concerns are being reported. We cannot know what extent Palin vetted them, but there is a significant amont of people that agree with her. So it is plausible that she would be very concerned about the wellfare of her ailing son. What if Bush was proposing the bill, would you allow your ailing son to be covered by a bill, Dubya' was pushing? Maybe? What if he also exempted himself from the bill after stating during his campaign he wanted everyone to have access to the same coverage he and our government officials recieve?
Good, nothing new here. No suprise, you always go slowly. Dude you totaly missed the point. The point was the anti-healthcare reform interests were taking deception and lying to new heights using Hawkins as an example. But for one small problem the healthcare system that the article said would have killed him has been keeping him alive for decades. Duh, you totally missed it dude. I did not change any arguement dude. Your response here is pretty incoherent and it sounds like you missed your meds this evening. "This response was to your basic premise that single payer, socialized medicine, universal health care; whatever you choose to call it would work if practiced." I made no such claim dude. And you make the mistake of lumping universal healthcare and socialized medicine together, they are different. Again this goes back to the main point, that anti-healthcare forces are making stuff up and playing to the uninformed...making outlandish and false claims. That was the point, not wither Hawkins would or would not have survived, clearly he did. And clearly he likes the British system of socialized medicine. There is no death panel in any proposed healthcare legislation it is more fiction for the dittoheads. And if you think there is a death panel then you had better read the relevant pages of the bill and show it to all of us. But you cannot because it does not exist. I made no such assertions that healthcare under Obama's plan would work like it did in England with Hawkins. In no small part because Obama is not proposing a healthcare system like that in Great Britian. Obama is proposing a nearly universal healthcare system but it is not a single payer system. Wow, a lot of words, zero substance. Again no substance, no fact, no coherence, no reason...just a bunch of words strung together to form personal attacks. DUDE you have not supported one claim. And Dude, you continue to throw around words of which you do not know the meaning. In the end you wind up with a lot of incoherent words strung together which just don't make any sense. Seriously, I think you could benefit with some professional psych help...please consider it. Prove your statement below: "I really hate to break this to you, but you are not an independent American who does his own thinking. You are a sycophantic hack, and cult leader, nothing more." Do you know what a cult is? Seriously, seek some professional help. Again just because people disagree with you does not mean they are wrong. It does not mean that there is something wrong with them. I suggest looking at yourself before pointing your fingers at others.
The reporting of "outrageous concerns" (lies and bs) has nothing to do with the clarity of the bill, or lack of same. The "concerned" are not people who have been confused by the bill. They are people who have been lied to and manipulated by the enemies of the proposed legislation and the enemies of the administration involved. Disagreements about the actual merits of the bill have yet to be considered, in the mass media. For example: Its capitulation to the interests of insurance companies and drug manufacturers, thereby greatly reducing its prospects of holding down the spiraling costs that are a major problem with US medical services, has never been discussed in any detail on any news or analysis program I know of.
The outrageous claims have nothing to do with the text of the bills and everything to do with PR Firms, lobbyists, and special interests in conjunction with their allies (right wing media and Republican officials) spreading disinformation (lies) at every opportunity. How is that important, there are a lot of ditto heads who accept everything she says as gospel...no news there. Her family is well provided for she will make millions in speeches, public appearances and book deals as she is now a Republican goddess. So no matter what happens she can afford healthcare for her family out of pocket. And there is much more money for her in playing the dittoheads and supporting the special interests. My guess is she will run for office again ni the not too distant future and likely win a Senate seat in which case she would be covered by the government. Well W is not proposing this bill nor would he ever propose this kind of bill for many reasons. george II loves special interests and would never betray them. Special interests have no better friend that george II. george II is not the issue. He already is covered for life under a government sponsored and funded plan.
Town Hall Protester explains why she's against Healthcare reform. The attitudes and beliefs illustrated in this video is becoming synonymous with the right. Observe how the woman completely contradicts herself at the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPc...th_b_260465.html&feature=player_embedded#t=88
For my Republican friends. This is what Government intrusion is when it comes to Healthcare. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150958,00.html Where were the tea bagging healthcare protesters then? Nowhere because it was them who wanted the Government to intervene in a private family matter.
That's nothing. You know the Republican party has grown weak and desperate when they're comparing Swedish-style health care and quality of life to Nazism. Just more proof the education system needs to be fixed, now not only is it cranking out hordes of gangstas eager to get themselves shot, but the right-wing politicians coming out of that system seem to be even dumber.
Your making a baseless assertion, there is no proof of this. There is proof of her making two internet entries, one a clarification of the first, including dustrustful speculation of where the provisions of the current bill will lead in the future. Considering it is her ailing son it is plausible the she really fears for her sons wellfare. I doubt many women would want their ailing sons health care desicions left in some one elses hands. Or maybe you havent heard this story. If you can't understand this basic fundemental of motherly instinct we have no reason to continue.
Yes, there is lots of proof if you care to look for it. Below is a link to an interview with an ex-insurance executive testifying to the tactics I described in my previous post. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html I don't understand what you mean by this. Let me repeat myself, I don't doubt she wants the best for her family. I never said otherwise. If you read what I wrote, she already has the best for her family. She has a lot of wealth and much more to come by playing the dittohead and special interest card, pandering to their interests. She does not need healthcare insurance. So your arguement here is simply not relevant.
Say I link a conservative scientist testifying to the evidence of creation does that make creation fact? I am not surprised, because you haven't researched the facts, what she actually said in the whole context. Instead, your just running around regurgitaing what the liberal media has told you. We haven't even got the lil red wagon your riding in back on the side walk yet, so we can't even discuss were its going.
I used your own words and still argue about what your point was. Honestly, you expect me to take you seriously when you cannot even stick to your own words? You changed the argument. Those words are the ones you posted with the link. Put that side by side to your response to mine. Even if ever so slightly, you did try to change the argument. One stated socialize medicine wouldn't have worked for Hawking, and then the other stated that Hawking would have died if he had British socialized medicine, which he already did and survived. But the greater point to your post is that it (socialized medicine/universal health care/Obamacare) works. I am done having this discussion; those are your words and the ones I responded to. I know you think this is something different. However, what your argument is that opponents to Obamacare say that Hawking could not have survived with socialized medicine. In fact, he did. I am not arguing that point. Hawking being alive is clear evidence that the claims are not true since England has socialized medicine. Yet, you continue to argue with me on this. That said, I also stated that part of your assertion here is that socialized medicine would work in America because it did it England. In short, you are providing evidence that it works. Again, I am not arguing that it probably does and can work in some environments. But my counterpoint was that if Hawking was living under privatized medicine, he would have survived as well. This is why originally I said you were misrepresenting the truth. I am beyond that point now. I am turning to how the argument has been framed. Before I go there, socialized medicine and universal healthcare is essentially the same thing; the mandates and costs originate from the same point, government. Where do you think government gets its money? Once you understand that principle then you can begin to understand the outrage against the plan. This leads me right back to how the argument has been framed. We all, both sides have been arguing over nuances of what this is called and what that is called. We have argued over universal versus private care. At no point, and this where conservatives are missing a brilliant opportunity, has anyone argued over who should make personal decisions in health care? This is really a battle between capitalism and marxism, even if this is lost on those who are taking the sides. Who should make the choices? Many here, with some exceptions, have no problems with government making the choice, and that is scary. Newsflash to partisans: government sucks irrespective of which party runs the White House. We should ALL be concerned over government dipping into private affairs. And both sides are guilty of sanctioning government actions when its party is in the White House. Someone asked what I think Hawking's premium insurance costs would be in America? My answer is simply it is none of my fucking business, nor is it theirs. Because that question assumes the costs would be high, the greater question is why would it be high? Here is where lefties are in total denial, listen to your answer to the question. See you people that support Obamacare/socialized medicine/universal health care whatever you want to call it, are missing the central point: it is a private issue. It is funny that you use that argument for things that are destructive to human lives, but when it comes to something that unjustly affects another person’s pocket, why you are all for invading one's privacy. It is immaterial whether the rich, or middle class, or poor pay, the bottom line is that it is a private issue. When you view history through the eyes of retribution you approve of things that typically only led to more anger and contention.
You have been linked to the Swiss system twice now, to my knowledge. It is quite different from the Canadian, which in turn is different from the French. Beg to differ. It bears directly on the truth of your assertion that Hawking would be alive now under a private insurance system - not if he couldn't afford the premiums for First World level care, he wouldn't be. Newsflash to : corporate sucks at caretaking even with competition, and there is no "free market" in medical care to keep it even marginally honest. We all agree that doctors and patients should make most medical decisions. Some of us also think all large bureaucracies with ulterior motives are suspect, others seem to think only "government" is a suspect intruder, and insurance corporations are OK. I don't know why you guys trust private insurance companies, but I do think you are wrong there. It works better than the US system in every single First World country that has tried it. Taxing the rich is not invading their privacy.
Mod Note: We're not going to have another fifty threads on Health Care. While there are some valid side discussions, you'll have to come up with a good reason for starting another one, instead of just posting more media snippets about how some people are for, and against, Health Care Reform.
Canadian Health System While the US is considering remaking our healthcare system to something perhaps more in line with the Canadian model, Canadian Doctors are at a conference discussing what should be done to address the current problems they are facing. They called the present system "unsustainable". The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it. The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. Ouellet has been saying that.. it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared." Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made. "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands." He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said. Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family. "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig. "They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."Read the entire article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw If you read the article, you'll see that they are voicing many of the same complaints made about healthcare in the US. They feel that healthcare is not centered enough on the patient (despite the fact that this is a fully government run system devoid of the profit motive so many on the Left see as the root of all evil in the US system). They say their present system is unsustainable. They feel that many are not getting optimal care. And what's that bit about wait lists? My point is not to demonize government run healthcare, but to point out that it is by no means a panacea. And that while our current system is not perfect, neither is any other system. They all have their flaws, very often the same flaws. There should be no rush to alter our system which, for all its faults, is working well for the vast majority of Americans. We should have a reasonable discussion. We should have compromise. We should pass reform in small, bite sized bits. You know, bills small enough that everyone can actually read them. Bills small enough that there's no room to hide pork and other unrelated crap in them. Hell, maybe they could even write them in such a way that they could be understood by congressmembers (as well as the public) without the aid of two lawyers. (Which is why House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said he didn't bother to read the proposed US healthcare reform bill) http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=51610
The Canadian system, if it implodes as feared, will still probably provide better care and outcomes than the US system - which is already in a state that would make headlines about collapse in any other First World country. Alternatively, Canada could throw another 30% money at it, and keep its currently superior system (even add luxuries) at 20% less cost than the US inferior system. You have got to be kidding. Our system is a rolling disaster, that is about to take down even more of our major institutions (having trashed the car industry, among others). If you can't bear to simply throw it out, for sentimental reasons or something, at least open it up to more immigrant personnel and imported drugs, so the bottom third of the economy can afford prescriptions for painkillers and asthma meds, maybe even the basics of mid-level trauma care or preventive stuff like mole removal and vaccinations. We should never have elected the Congress we did in the 80s and 90s, or allowed the news media to be ruined and coopted as they have been. yep. Too late.
