The W
Views: 99950638
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@543 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - 6 people arrested at a town hall meeting in St Louis (Page 3)
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (66 total)
Nuclear Winter
Boudin rouge








Since: 9.11.03
From: Bedford, Michigan

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.18
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Again, the Dixie Chicks became a huge story for saying they were ashamed of the President. Now Glenn Beck--who, unlike the Dixie Chicks, is a professional news commentator--calls the President a racist.


I think the real difference is that, as you noted, Glenn Beck is a professional news commentator; he is paid to give his opinion on current events. The Dixie Chicks are musicians, paid to write and perform music.

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    All I read, when I see this post, is, "*I* don't have diabetes and/or Cushing's, so *I* don't have to worry about it, but those that do should be happy with this shoddy, limited free clinic I found a link to via Google." It's arrogance, selfishness and ignorance to an absolutely astonishing degree, and you should be ashamed of the attitude you've displayed here.


If he himself doesn't have diabetes and/or Cushing's or know somebody who does, he doesn't have to worry about it. I don't have diabetes and/or Cushing's, and I don't know anyone who does. I have no obligation whatsoever to worry about it.

However, if I were to walk around and pretend that people suffering from these afflictions are not important because I don't know them, that would indeed be a display of arrogance, selfishness, and ignorance.

At the same time, I don't believe my federal, state, or local governments have a moral obligation nor the legal authority to confiscate my earned money in the form of tax dollars to be distributed to those determined to be more deserving or more "in-need" of my money.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Every single aspect of government run or supervised healthcare in this country has been a failure, pure and simple


That's nonsense. Medicare is such a success that even the raving loons who hate everything the government touches want it. It led to tremendous gains in life expectancy for the elderly and sharply reduced elderly poverty as well.


    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      And MY point is that people were NOT insanely disrespectful to Bush. Not people of importance, anyway. And, besides that, the real complaint isn't that people are being disrespectful--it's that when they show up to these meetings, they aren't *letting the other side speak*. And that certainly didn't happen to Republicans under Bush.


    That's probably the most insanely hypocritical thing I've read here in some time. People were ridiculously disrespectful to Bush, too. People were showing up to anti-war rallies with posters of Bush depicted as Hitler - sound familiar?


Well, as I've already stated, there are always a few kooks out there. So you're telling me that as long as there are kooks out there, then everything else is just hunky dory?
The point is that Bush may have been treated that way by a small group of wackos, but Obama is being treated that way by much larger groups of people, many of whom are actually active in the Republican Party, and even more of whom crticized much less extreme criticism of Bush as unpatriotic. THAT is hypocrisy.

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    Hell, there were books published detailing the fictionalized ASSASSINATION of him. TV shows making fun of him, films making fun of him - hell Will Farrell toured the country staging an hour-long mockery of him.


You're comparing SNL-style parody--which EVERY President gets--to people claiming the President will institute death panels and that he's not an American?
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.40
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Well, as I've already stated, there are always a few kooks out there. So you're telling me that as long as there are kooks out there, then everything else is just hunky dory?


Of course not. I noticed you conveniently left out this part of my quote.

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
    The same nutbags saying those things about Obama are disrespectful as well. Ripping policy is one thing - ripping the person who's proposing the policy with slurs is another.


It happens on both sides. Don't think the left is even remotely innocent on this.

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    The point is that Bush may have been treated that way by a small group of wackos, but Obama is being treated that way by much larger groups of people, many of whom are actually active in the Republican Party, and even more of whom crticized much less extreme criticism of Bush as unpatriotic. THAT is hypocrisy.


So you're telling me that as long as there are less kooks out there on the left than on the right (which is also incorrect), then everything else is just hunky dory?

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    You're comparing SNL-style parody--which EVERY President gets--to people claiming the President will institute death panels and that he's not an American?


Publishing a book about the assassination of Bush is NOT "SNL-style parody" nor is comparing him to Hitler. You are seriously delusional if you believe the comdemnation and insulting of Bush was any less offensive or to a less degree than the current loons who vilify Obama as un-American.

Regardless, the current administration would be wise to consider the anger expressed by people (who are not ALL part of special interest or manufactured grass roots campaigns) at these town halls. The Republican side seemed to have made a similar mistake in Bush's presidency and we saw how that turned out last November.
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 30 min.
ICQ:  
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.06
    Originally posted by tricia
    I also realize that this probably doesn’t explain why Canada is so, um, “blessed” with national healthcare, and maybe El Nastio and other Canadians would like to tell us all why.


From some research I’ve done recently, initially most hospitals in Canada were run by non-profits (such as religious orders), charities, and municipal governments. They occasionally received money from the provincial government to encourage them taking on those who couldn’t pay. But Healthcare as Canadians know it took off in the 40’s with Tommy Douglas and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation provincial government within Saskatchewan. They provided Healthcare services to most of their population, but not all. Alberta followed suit then after. In 1957, the Federal Government created the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which funds 50% of those programs for the provinces. Saskatchewan then took the money they were saving and pumped it back in, giving universal health care. The next big thing came in 1966, where Lester B. Pearson was pressured by the NDP (who held the balance of power since the Liberals had a minority government) to pass Medical Care Act. Finally, the next big thing was the Canada Health Act in 1984 (Click Here (en.wikipedia.org) to see it) and the Social Union Framework Agreement in 1999.

Click Here (en.wikipedia.org) has a lot of good info on the history of Canadian Healthcare.

So no, racial overtones were not at play in the evolution of Canadian Health Care. It essentially grew from local groups seeing a need, and the government stepping in and trying to implement a standard procedure that works for all citizens.

The issue in Canada remains items such as doctor shortages, long wait times for exams (MRI’s, CAT Scans, etc) and “major elective surgeries” (like hip replacements and the like), taxes (these things cost money), and a very selective process in which procedures are covered. A recent example is a bit ago the Ontario government placed sex change operations as being covered under OHIP. Meanwhile, they de-listed eye exams so if you need your eyes tested for glasses, you must pay out of pocket for the exam (while paying for the glasses in full). So if my neighbor wanted a sex-change, it’s covered by taxes. But I need to pay for my eye exam and glasses out of pocket in order to see properly and function…there’s something about that which makes me uncomfortable. Using this example, I can see where Stagger and others are coming from. Yet at the same time, I also acknowledge that we ARE blessed with what we have, in that we have universal coverage on some items.

It’s a delicate issue, and I like this thread because it has made me evaluate my own stance on our system. It has made me more appreciative of what we have, and it has also shown me that our system is far from the ideal model some in the world make it out to be. Our system is broken, just in a different way than yours. In the end, I’m VERY happy we have universal coverage, because otherwise I’d be a total wreck. I just pray we can clean up some areas and tweak it to make it better. And I pray for the same with you guys down there.

(edited by El Nastio on 11.8.09 0926)


You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 42 min.
Last activity: 40 min.
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
The bottom line in all this is that what is being done works. Look how this thread is now almost exclusively discussing ad hominem attack strategy instead of the issue.

Alot of the problem now is that over the last 15+ years we have created a culture and maybe a generation who wouldn't know have to constructively debate, work together, and compromise if our country's life depended on it.



Perception is reality
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 1 day
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
    What I don't understand is why so vehement an opposition on, seemingly, the right, to a hybrid system that works so well in places that outstrip both the U.S. and places with a single-payer governement option, like Canada and England, for example.

Because I think this is more largely a debate about the role of government. In the U.S., there has been a pretty dramatic increase in the size of government over the past year to year and a half. And, I think that people are really arguing about the amount of government spending, the huge growth in government debt, the government's still large investment in the financial system than about how to provide health care and what role the government should play in improving health care.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Alot of the problem now is that over the last 15+ years we have created a culture and maybe a generation who wouldn't know have to constructively debate, work together, and compromise if our country's life depended on it.

I couldn't agree more--I think our politicians have no interest in actually finding solutions or serving the public. To me, the level of discussion about important issues like health care, stimulus programs, what to do in the financial system, tax policy, etc. has been embarassingly low--we get a steady diet of either anecdotes or threats and precious little substance. I think the leaders of the political parties and the politicians themselves have absolutely no shame and do not have the best interests of the country in mind.
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 71 days
Last activity: 31 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.92
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Alot of the problem now is that over the last 15+ years we have created a culture and maybe a generation who wouldn't know have to constructively debate, work together, and compromise if our country's life depended on it.


It's funny, I was just thinking about how when I first got on-line I always hoped the level of discourse would mature to real-world levels after a couple of years. Sadly, the real world has become more like the Internet instead.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.01
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Every single aspect of government run or supervised healthcare in this country has been a failure, pure and simple


    That's nonsense. Medicare is such a success that even the raving loons who hate everything the government touches want it. It led to tremendous gains in life expectancy for the elderly and sharply reduced elderly poverty as well.





If Medicare is such a success, A) why do people have to buy additional insurance, and B) why is it always running at a deficit?

I would LOVE for everybody in this country, who is a legal citizen, to receive health care benefits. However, I don't feel it's the government's duty to PROVIDE it, or to OVERSEE how it's administered.

Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.24
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    And, I think that people are really arguing about the amount of government spending, the huge growth in government debt, the government's still large investment in the financial system than about how to provide health care and what role the government should play in improving health care.


I understand the apprehension of expanding the government's role. But I don't believe that we can continue to spend the amount on health care that we do while getting so little for it. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I just hope that person who is in charge of a nationalized health care system didn't get fired from his previous job running an Arabian horse association.

    Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
    At the same time, I don't believe my federal, state, or local governments have a moral obligation nor the legal authority to confiscate my earned money in the form of tax dollars to be distributed to those determined to be more deserving or more "in-need" of my money.


I think this is the crux of the debate. And I'm not sure how either side is going to convince the other. Shouting each other down sure isn't helping.

For me, if *my* tax dollars can improve the quality of life of my fellow citizens who are less fortunate than I, then I am all for it. I *wish* the government would focus more on that and less on other things. If it did, than perhaps the vitriol towards our federal government wouldn't be quite so.





Who likes the little little duckies in the pond? I do, I do, I do, a chicka-quack quack.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 42 min.
Last activity: 40 min.
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.35
A society, any society, should be judged in part in how it takes care of those at the bottom of the ladder for two reasons. First it says who we are morally. Second, we as a society will pay one way or another. I think most would agree with that but disagree on how to address the problem.

With the amount of money we are already spending on health care, it should be possible to make sure that essentially everyone gets care, especially routine and preventative care. That alone would save billions.

And it would be better if the feds didn't control it but then who?



Perception is reality
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 224 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    A society, any society, should be judged in part in how it takes care of those at the bottom of the ladder for two reasons. First it says who we are morally. Second, we as a society will pay one way or another. I think most would agree with that but disagree on how to address the problem.


I agree Doc, but as has been said before, it is not the job of the government to do so. Not only is it outside the scope of what the government is tasked with, it is impossible for the Federal government to properly define what it is that we "morally" must take care of.

For example, while some would think that we have a moral obligation to help someone get an abortion, it might be against our very morals to do so. Some may feel that we as a society have a moral obligation to assist a critical patient in ending his life, while another might be morally opposed to this.

I am not getting into my morals of the above examples, but it certainly should not be something that is governed to the masses, when the feelings on such issues are varying.

As far as our moral obligation as a society & our responsibility to take care of those who can not care for themselves, why are we not tasked with taking care of that ourselves through charity, volunteer work & other community outreach programs? Why are we relying on Uncle Sam to handle our moral obligations for us?

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    With the amount of money we are already spending on health care, it should be possible to make sure that essentially everyone gets care, especially routine and preventative care. That alone would save billions.

    And it would be better if the feds didn't control it but then who?


In addition to the problem you mentioned earlier of people shouting at each other, rather, than understanding each other & working for a solution, another problem is that people love to complain but offer no alternative. I humbly will try :-)

I often hear of a "healthcare" crisis in this country, but I think the more accurate term would be a "health insurance" crisis. Without getting to far into the details of my possible solution to making healthcare more affordable, I simply want to know why we can't treat health insurance in a manner similar to the way we treat auto insurance?

We should remove the employer based health insurance we have now (which limits an individual's choice & makes the prospect of losing a job even more daunting & debilatating), & allow people to choose their own insurance provider. Opening up these millions of individual customers would allow insurance companies to offer greater choices to the individual in a manner more suited to that person's needs. Right now everyone is lumped into one employer based plan that probably does not suit the needs of many individuals within that plan.

Competition is a good thing. Right now, people don't have a choice. They can basically join their employers healthcare plan or mostly go uninsured. If we took away that albatross hanging around everyone's neck when it comes to personal health insurance choice, we would be better off & lower the cost of health insurance, thereby making it easier to afford the quality healthcare America has to offer.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
As far as our moral obligation as a society & our responsibility to take care of those who can not care for themselves, why are we not tasked with taking care of that ourselves through charity, volunteer work & other community outreach programs? Why are we relying on Uncle Sam to handle our moral obligations for us?

Social Contract. Plus, volunteer groups would not be able to handle 400 million people or even a third of that. Hell, they can barely take care of the local efforts late alone a county, state or nation.


I often hear of a "healthcare" crisis in this country, but I think the more accurate term would be a "health insurance" crisis. Without getting to far into the details of my possible solution to making healthcare more affordable, I simply want to know why we can't treat health insurance in a manner similar to the way we treat auto insurance?


So, every time I go to the doctor, they will up the rates? Car insurance is probably the worst example of this. I agree we need competition, but the reality is there is competition. Insurance companies compete for the employeers not the individual. If they competed for the individual, it would be higher since there is no bargaining power for the individual. It would end up the same as car insurance where it will only be off be a few dollars here or there, nothing huge. We have a cat, we looked into pet insurance which is like what you are talking about. Its the same effect. Pre-existing conditions are not covered and to go to the vet, its just as expensive to pay out right.

As a company, you have more leverage since it equals more people. Insurance companies don't care about individuals, they care about profit and to get more profit, you need more people.

(edited by lotjx on 11.8.09 1444)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 224 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by lotjx
    So, every time I go to the doctor, they will up the rates? Car insurance is probably the worst example of this. I agree we need competition, but the reality is there is competition. Insurance companies compete for the employeers not the individual. If they competed for the individual, it would be higher since there is no bargaining power for the individual. It would end up the same as car insurance where it will only be off be a few dollars here or there, nothing huge. We have a cat, we looked into pet insurance which is like what you are talking about. Its the same effect. Pre-existing conditions are not covered and to go to the vet, its just as expensive to pay out right.


No it would not. I pay for car insurance & do not have my oil changes, tire rotations, brake pads & other routine maintenance covered by my auto insurance. I pay for those things out of pocket.
Healthcare should be set up the same way. Routine visits & well care should be paid out of pocket (and tax deductible through an HSA or FSA). Your health insurance should cover hospitalization & catastrophic care (similar to auto collision) and would therefore provide a MUCH lower premium to the the insured than what is currently paid through the employer based system.

Right now, I pay almost $10,000 a year in health insurance premiums for me, my wife & my new baby girl (it was the same before my daughter was born, but because of the nature of the one-size-fits-all employer based plan, I pay one rate for family, regardless of the families size... causing me to pay disproportionately more for my family as compared to my co-worker who has 6 children but pays the same $10K as I do). Yet being in our 30s & 20s, we would not be paying anywhere near that amount if we were judged as individuals as opposed to part of a larger group supposedly designed to save me money.

Insurance companies must presently offer a higher rate to everyone in order to cover the greater risks that every employer based plan will contain. As a result, those with lower health risks pay the same as those of higher risks. As a 33 year old non-smoker, I should not be forced to pay the same as my 33 year old co-worker who smokes, in the same way that if someone is a reckless driver with multiple accidents they should pay more than the safer driver.

Choice is a good thing, & the current system allows for none. I should not have to choose my job based on the health plan that company offers, when it would otherwise the best job available to someone with my skill set. I didn't study & work hard my whole life to make employment choices based on a health plan, but stupidly tying those two non-related entities together has caused that to be the case & bought is to a place where the proposed solution is to remove even more choice.
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    We should remove the employer based health insurance we have now (which limits an individual's choice & makes the prospect of losing a job even more daunting & debilatating), & allow people to choose their own insurance provider. Opening up these millions of individual customers would allow insurance companies to offer greater choices to the individual in a manner more suited to that person's needs. Right now everyone is lumped into one employer based plan that probably does not suit the needs of many individuals within that plan.

    Competition is a good thing. Right now, people don't have a choice. They can basically join their employers healthcare plan or mostly go uninsured. If we took away that albatross hanging around everyone's neck when it comes to personal health insurance choice, we would be better off & lower the cost of health insurance, thereby making it easier to afford the quality healthcare America has to offer.


There are millions of people right now on employer-based health insurance that simply could not find insurance for themselves due to pre-existing conditions. What "greater choices" would be opened up by increases the amount of customers?

I would think that the only way that competition would improve the insurance industry would be if a company focused on not denying because of pre-existing, or having a strong reputation of immediate approval of services; some sort of increase in customer service.

From my understanding, that is the most likely result of the health care revamping, that the government will basically become another insurance company. And as long as it doesn't cheat by tolerating losses, is that not okay?



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.

Let's Go Riders! (3-3)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If Medicare is such a success, A) why do people have to buy additional insurance, and B) why is it always running at a deficit?


A) Because they want to cover additional things, and B) because we have a rapidly aging population.

***EDITED TO CORRECT ATTRIBUTION*** sorry about that


    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Well, as I've already stated, there are always a few kooks out there. So you're telling me that as long as there are kooks out there, then everything else is just hunky dory?


    Of course not. I noticed you conveniently left out this part of my quote.

      Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      The same nutbags saying those things about Obama are disrespectful as well. Ripping policy is one thing - ripping the person who's proposing the policy with slurs is another.


    It happens on both sides. Don't think the left is even remotely innocent on this.


"The left" isn't innocent, if you define "the left" as "anyone on the left side of the spectrum." But my point is that the *organized* left--the Democratic Party, liberal commentators, active liberal organizations--have been far, far more respectful and fair than the organized right.

More to the point: what originally started this part of the discussion was Grimis' complaint that when Bush was in office, he constantly heard that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism." My point is that those words were never used to justify the loonies comparing Bush to Hitler; they were used to justify the Dixie Chicks quote, and antiwar protests, and other responsible opposition to Bush policies.

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      The point is that Bush may have been treated that way by a small group of wackos, but Obama is being treated that way by much larger groups of people, many of whom are actually active in the Republican Party, and even more of whom crticized much less extreme criticism of Bush as unpatriotic. THAT is hypocrisy.


    So you're telling me that as long as there are less kooks out there on the left than on the right (which is also incorrect), then everything else is just hunky dory?


I'm telling you that as long as the only people misbehaving on the left are kooks, then the everything is hunky dory with the liberal establishment.

    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      You're comparing SNL-style parody--which EVERY President gets--to people claiming the President will institute death panels and that he's not an American?


    Publishing a book about the assassination of Bush is NOT "SNL-style parody" nor is comparing him to Hitler. You are seriously delusional if you believe the comdemnation and insulting of Bush was any less offensive or to a less degree than the current loons who vilify Obama as un-American.


I didn't ask about you comparing a book about the assassination of Bush to comparing Obama to Hitler (although, given the nature of the book, I don't really think it's comparable); I asked about your comparing Will Ferrell's stage show to comparing Obama to Hitler.

And the right-wing kooks seem to have raised the ante over either one; there was a guy at Obama's speech today carrying a sign that said "It's Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty", an obvious reference to the Thomas Jefferson quote that says that the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tryants. And, yes, the man had a gun.

(edited by Peter The Hegemon on 13.8.09 1731)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
No it would not. I pay for car insurance & do not have my oil changes, tire rotations, brake pads & other routine maintenance covered by my auto insurance. I pay for those things out of pocket.
Healthcare should be set up the same way. Routine visits & well care should be paid out of pocket (and tax deductible through an HSA or FSA). Your health insurance should cover hospitalization & catastrophic care (similar to auto collision) and would therefore provide a MUCH lower premium to the the insured than what is currently paid through the employer based system.

So,you want us to pay a $100 a visit out of our pocket and then still pay to have insurance? How many doctor visits do you have with your wife and child? What about tests for cancer or those supposed to be out of pocket as well? I had health insurance similar to these and I decided to gamble and go without, thankfully we got health insurance through my wife's employer. Yet, if I do got hospitalization, my debuctable will still got up under the same plan. I'm sorry, but this is far worse then the current system.

You can get Cobra which not a great system allows for you to go out on your own and get insurance. So, you have a choice, its just I bet since your employer was able to negotiate with the insurance company due to the amount of people they had, you got a better insurer. Plus, you arguing for against a system that would actually let you choose between employer, government and Cobra. That really doesn't make sense.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 1 day
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.36
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      If Medicare is such a success, A) why do people have to buy additional insurance, and B) why is it always running at a deficit?


    A) Because they want to cover additional things, and B) because we have a rapidly aging population.


A) Make sure you're quoting the right person, and B) this was not me.

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    "The left" isn't innocent, if you define "the left" as "anyone on the left side of the spectrum." But my point is that the *organized* left--the Democratic Party, liberal commentators, active liberal organizations--have been far, far more respectful and fair than the organized right.


I'm sure you see it that way since you're a self-professed liberal, but you're wrong. Exhibits A, B & C: Pelosi, Frank & ACORN just off the top of my head. The crap that spews from their nasty little pieholes is as offensive as Glenn Beck dressing up in laderhosen and calling Obama a racist. It happens just as much on the left. And regardless, it's wrong whether it's an ordinary citizen or an organziation or a politician....

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    More to the point: what originally started this part of the discussion was Grimis' complaint that when Bush was in office, he constantly heard that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism." My point is that those words were never used to justify the loonies comparing Bush to Hitler; they were used to justify the Dixie Chicks quote, and antiwar protests, and other responsible opposition to Bush policies.


I agree. And I think people claiming that the dissent displayed at town halls and reported in polls is entirely the creation of "loonies" on the far right aren't giving legitimacy to those who are genuinely and legitimately upset.

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    I'm telling you that as long as the only people misbehaving on the left are kooks, then the everything is hunky dory with the liberal establishment.


As long as you classify those 3 examples I gave above and a few others that publicly trash not only Bush, but anyone who would dare oppose an Obama policy as kooks.... sure, it's all good.

    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    I didn't ask about you comparing a book about the assassination of Bush to comparing Obama to Hitler (although, given the nature of the book, I don't really think it's comparable); I asked about your comparing Will Ferrell's stage show to comparing Obama to Hitler.


Yes, you said some kooks were comparing Obama to Hitler. I showed you that the exact same thing happened to Bush plus I have yet to see anyone travelling the country, posing as a comedic, dumbed-down version of our current president.

(edited by Reverend J Shaft on 11.8.09 1713)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 224 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.48
    Originally posted by lotjx
    So,you want us to pay a $100 a visit out of our pocket and then still pay to have insurance? How many doctor visits do you have with your wife and child? What about tests for cancer or those supposed to be out of pocket as well?


Actually, yes. If each member of my family goes to a doctor once a month (an unlikely number, but lets assume that high level), then we would be spending $3,600 in well-care visits. I could then have $6,400 to play with in order to have coverage for hospitalization & catastrophic care to account for the unexpected (the thing we normally associate with the concept of insurance), where the reality would be that such a plan would cost far less.

The reality is that a plan such as this would allow me and many others to significantly reduce their health insurance burden, & also lower the overall cost of healthcare for others.

Also, keep in mind, that I do not feel this alone will "fix" the health insurance problem in this country, but it would provide a realistic option for those in need of coverage, but cannot dream of affording $10K a year (btw, that number is WITH some employer subsidization).
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.42
Quick housekeeping post:

Shaft and Peter: Stop. No mas on the left vs. right tangent in this thread. Thank you.

lotjx: Please learn to use the [quote] and [/quote] tags if you're quoting somebody, because your posts are getting very confusing.

That is all.



lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.39
Sorry, don't know how to do it without totally screwing up and making it worse.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread rated: 4.48
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Thread ahead: Dominick Dunne (1925-2009)
Next thread: Glenn Beck losing Advertisers
Previous thread: Bob Novak (1931-2009)
(215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Uhh. Outside of Lincoln/Johnson have their been any other pairings of President from one political party,Vice Presidents from opposing party? Cause Lincoln/Johnson is ownly one I can think of.
The W - Current Events & Politics - 6 people arrested at a town hall meeting in St Louis (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.