A Question for Health Care Supporters

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]
Because with word usage as per the American media and Democrat politicians, being “bipartisan” means agreeing with Democrats and deferring to what they want.

“Divisive” is another such word. Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not divisive (and heaven forbid anyone should call Obama divisive) but anyone disagreeing with her is, of course, “divisive.”[/quote]

Sorry, but anyone disagreeing with Madame Speaker are considered Nazis and racists.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

The bill is “meaningful.” The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of “death panels” and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times. [/quote]

Another content free post from our faux-moderate. Of course the Republicans had no intention of being bipartisan on this bill - they don’t owe the Democrats “bi-partisanship” when they flatly believe that this bill is a terrible idea. That would be a complete abdication of political responsibility.

And you have it backwards - opposition to this bill commands a majority of the American electorate, majorities by both Independents and Republicans, and had House Democrats vote against it. Why would the GOP need to sign on for token “bipartisanism” when the the only “bipartisanism” this bill enjoys is folks lining up against it?

And, yes, you are right to be outraged at the politics - a horrible precedent has been set for future Congresses, regardless of party. “Progressives” pride themselves on “looking toward the future”, but have established a shaneful precedent of lawmaking that neither party should be engaging in.

Moreover, your quote about “fear tactics” is trite and laughable. This, from the party that brought us:

  1. Bush’s police state!
  2. Overhaul our industrial economies or the earth is doomed to drown due to global warming!
  3. Pass this stimulus our we will go straight into a depression!

Hilarious. And predictable.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Here’s a riddle/question/scenario:

For 200+ years, people have been living in a house and those who make enough to do so have been paying money into a pool based on their income that is then redistributed amongst all of the household members in the forms of services that all members of the house can use, regardless of whether they paid or not. Everyone in the house is related to each other. Those who cannot pay, for a whole slew of reasons, would otherwise contract disease, resort to stealing, not bathe and stink up the house and so on, to the detriment of EVERYONE in the house.

The money in this pool is redistributed amongst a select few who have been voted into this “redistribution” position by all members of the house who chose to vote. These people are voted in based on how they say they will redistribute this money.

For many, many reasons, there are more and more people in the house every year whose fortunes are worsening. They cannot be kicked out of the house and as their fortunes worsen, the money they can put into the pool is less and less, while those who can put the most into the pool continue to make more and more money for reasons unrelated to the plight of the poor household members.

It’s voting time and the money MUST be put into the pool because there have been incidents throughout the household’s existence where the people claimed they would pay for certain services on their own w/o the input of the redistributors, but the money was mostly spent on themselves; the garbage was never taken out, the dishes never got done, laundry never got done and so on, until these things became a problem for everyone in the home. So the redistributors have given those in the household the power to pay for these services on their own but it didn’t happen. So it’s time to decide where the money goes and things in the household, while not horrendous, are not as good as they were in years past.

Should the people:
a) pocket all their money again?
b) spend it on fighting with the neighbors
c) spend it on a lawyer for one of the household members who got arrested for stealing some of the money in the pot?
d) spend it to call the plumber to fix the sink because he needs the job to stay afloat, even though you’ve already paid him to fix it before and he never actually fixed it right?
e) spend it on strawberry plants for the garden, even though it’s nowhere near the right time of year to plant strawberries?
f) spend it on the plan that the redistributors have to clean up the poorest members of the house so everyone in the house doesn’t have to smell their shit and catch some of the viruses the poor ones have picked up along the way? [/quote]

Holy shit , I think they should move next door:)[/quote]

And leave the rest of the family to deal with all the bullshit in the house? Your self-preservation instincts are finely honed, but I fear your familial relations are not.[/quote]

You are not my family and my government is not my mother.

[/quote]

And people without healthcare aren’t horse owners headed to the same place I am.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The bill is “meaningful.” The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of “death panels” and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times.

[/quote]

quoted for emphasis.[/quote]

Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]

Normally you don’t miss the point so widely. [/quote]

Yeah well, those death panels will happen and you should fear them.

You can denounce that as “scare tactics” and declare that anyone that warns people about them is a lunatic but that is an obvious attempt to frame the debate in a way that makes socialised healthcare a foregone conclusion.

So, hell no, they were not “bipartisan” and I reject your premises.

[/quote]

bota and I agree on about 0.000000001 % of issues.

Here is one of them. He knows full well what happens in a government run health care system.

Listen to him closely on this issue. He knows of what he speaks.

JeffR

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Answer C.)

Pioneer C has 240 horses. He could share 1 horse and save Pioneer A, but their his horses and he worked hard for them (inherited all of them - horse interest). Instead of saving Pioneer A, Pioneer C chooses the “Fuck thy neighbor” approach, because at the end of the day, why the fuck should he care about anyone else, as long as he has a waterfront property and a Ferrari?[/quote]

Seeing how pioneer C gained all his horses by horse interest, wouldn’t it behoove him to loan a horse to pioneer A, charge him horse interest, and thus increase his overall wealth of horse interest? It’s kind of funny how free market capitalism would work in both pioneer’s favor, isn’t it?

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Answer C.)

Pioneer C has 240 horses. He could share 1 horse and save Pioneer A, but their his horses and he worked hard for them (inherited all of them - horse interest). Instead of saving Pioneer A, Pioneer C chooses the “Fuck thy neighbor” approach, because at the end of the day, why the fuck should he care about anyone else, as long as he has a waterfront property and a Ferrari?[/quote]

Seeing how pioneer C gained all his horses by horse interest, wouldn’t it behoove him to loan a horse to pioneer A, charge him horse interest, and thus increase his overall wealth of horse interest? It’s kind of funny how free market capitalism would work in both pioneer’s favor, isn’t it?[/quote]

I already pointed this out. If he is getting horse interest it means that those 240 horses are already being put to work for other people.

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Answer C.)

Pioneer C has 240 horses. He could share 1 horse and save Pioneer A, but their his horses and he worked hard for them (inherited all of them - horse interest). Instead of saving Pioneer A, Pioneer C chooses the “Fuck thy neighbor” approach, because at the end of the day, why the fuck should he care about anyone else, as long as he has a waterfront property and a Ferrari?[/quote]

Seeing how pioneer C gained all his horses by horse interest, wouldn’t it behoove him to loan a horse to pioneer A, charge him horse interest, and thus increase his overall wealth of horse interest? It’s kind of funny how free market capitalism would work in both pioneer’s favor, isn’t it?[/quote]

I agree with your assessment on capitalism, but what we are witnessing is

Pioneer A all of a sudden believes that the Horse is his, even though he stops paying for the horse. The government comes in and says Pioneer C can not reposses the horse but must lower the amount owed so that Pioneer A can keep the horse that belongs to Pioneer C. Then Pioneer A stops making payments again on the restructured deal 90% of the time.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Here’s a riddle/question/scenario:

For 200+ years, people have been living in a house and those who make enough to do so have been paying money into a pool based on their income that is then redistributed amongst all of the household members in the forms of services that all members of the house can use, regardless of whether they paid or not. Everyone in the house is related to each other. Those who cannot pay, for a whole slew of reasons, would otherwise contract disease, resort to stealing, not bathe and stink up the house and so on, to the detriment of EVERYONE in the house.

The money in this pool is redistributed amongst a select few who have been voted into this “redistribution” position by all members of the house who chose to vote. These people are voted in based on how they say they will redistribute this money.

For many, many reasons, there are more and more people in the house every year whose fortunes are worsening. They cannot be kicked out of the house and as their fortunes worsen, the money they can put into the pool is less and less, while those who can put the most into the pool continue to make more and more money for reasons unrelated to the plight of the poor household members.

It’s voting time and the money MUST be put into the pool because there have been incidents throughout the household’s existence where the people claimed they would pay for certain services on their own w/o the input of the redistributors, but the money was mostly spent on themselves; the garbage was never taken out, the dishes never got done, laundry never got done and so on, until these things became a problem for everyone in the home. So the redistributors have given those in the household the power to pay for these services on their own but it didn’t happen. So it’s time to decide where the money goes and things in the household, while not horrendous, are not as good as they were in years past.

Should the people:
a) pocket all their money again?
b) spend it on fighting with the neighbors
c) spend it on a lawyer for one of the household members who got arrested for stealing some of the money in the pot?
d) spend it to call the plumber to fix the sink because he needs the job to stay afloat, even though you’ve already paid him to fix it before and he never actually fixed it right?
e) spend it on strawberry plants for the garden, even though it’s nowhere near the right time of year to plant strawberries?
f) spend it on the plan that the redistributors have to clean up the poorest members of the house so everyone in the house doesn’t have to smell their shit and catch some of the viruses the poor ones have picked up along the way? [/quote]

Holy shit , I think they should move next door:)[/quote]

And leave the rest of the family to deal with all the bullshit in the house? Your self-preservation instincts are finely honed, but I fear your familial relations are not.[/quote]

You are not my family and my government is not my mother.

[/quote]

And people without healthcare aren’t horse owners headed to the same place I am.[/quote]

One is a property rights issue that can debated using any and all pieces of property, the other the attempt to create the illusion that we are all a big happpy family and in this together.

We are not.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]
Because with word usage as per the American media and Democrat politicians, being “bipartisan” means agreeing with Democrats and deferring to what they want.

“Divisive” is another such word. Nancy Pelosi, for example, is not divisive (and heaven forbid anyone should call Obama divisive) but anyone disagreeing with her is, of course, “divisive.”[/quote]

I believe that is any one that disagrees with the republican stance is a socialist.

Sorry, but anyone disagreeing with Madame Speaker are considered Nazis and racists.[/quote]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The bill is “meaningful.” The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of “death panels” and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times.

[/quote]

quoted for emphasis.[/quote]

Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]

Normally you don’t miss the point so widely. [/quote]

Yeah well, those death panels will happen and you should fear them.

You can denounce that as “scare tactics” and declare that anyone that warns people about them is a lunatic but that is an obvious attempt to frame the debate in a way that makes socialised healthcare a foregone conclusion.

So, hell no, they were not “bipartisan” and I reject your premises.

[/quote]

We already have the death panels , when you cost ins. Co.s too much money the deny you medical ins.coverage in the future

[quote]orion wrote:
<<< You are not my family and my government is not my mother.
[/quote]

Yes. Hopelessly flawed premise. Even given that premise though, one of the best things that ever happened to me was my Uncle, who I was sent to live with in Arizona in my teens, ignoring my mother and my aunt and kicking me out on the street with the clothes on my back and later letting me sit in jail… for the umpteenth time.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The bill is “meaningful.” The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of “death panels” and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times.

[/quote]

quoted for emphasis.[/quote]

Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]

Normally you don’t miss the point so widely. [/quote]

Yeah well, those death panels will happen and you should fear them.

You can denounce that as “scare tactics” and declare that anyone that warns people about them is a lunatic but that is an obvious attempt to frame the debate in a way that makes socialised healthcare a foregone conclusion.

So, hell no, they were not “bipartisan” and I reject your premises.

[/quote]

We already have the death panels , when you cost ins. Co.s too much money the deny you medical ins.coverage in the future [/quote]

So when government says a procedure is too expensive, experimental, or won’t impact the outcome of a patient and ultimately denies it, that’s better? Awesome ! Why wouldn’t the government do the same thing insurance companies do? Because they care? The same government who will fine you if you don’t carry insurance? This is mafia style politics.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The bill is “meaningful.” The positive qualities can easily be listed (It is literally another thread).

Last August was when I realized the Republican party had no intention whatsoever of being bipartisan. Talk of “death panels” and the like was done by Republican leaders and never shouted down by other republicans. It was a game to win the election that is coming up. Republicans are not hiding this whatsoever. They intend to win by fear tactics.

To me, this is politics over governance pure and simple. And a HORRIBLE sign of the times.

[/quote]

quoted for emphasis.[/quote]

Pure nonsense.

Why should they have been bipartisan when they wanted none of it?[/quote]

Normally you don’t miss the point so widely. [/quote]

Yeah well, those death panels will happen and you should fear them.

You can denounce that as “scare tactics” and declare that anyone that warns people about them is a lunatic but that is an obvious attempt to frame the debate in a way that makes socialised healthcare a foregone conclusion.

So, hell no, they were not “bipartisan” and I reject your premises.

[/quote]

We already have the death panels , when you cost ins. Co.s too much money the deny you medical ins.coverage in the future [/quote]

It is illegal to deny anyone coverage because they are costing too much money. The only way to deny coverage is non payment of premium, or limits on the policy are exhausted. You only pay for $1,000,000 in coverage that is all you are going to get. You want a higher limit then pay the extra premium for it. It is amazing how people think that insurance companies should pay for everything even though the person does not pay for that coverage. Read your Policy and you will know what is covered and what is not.