What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Hey Bill, I know way more about quantum physics than you do. I've got this book I've read front to back and understand everything in it. If you want to discuss it you'll have to read it yourself, but suffice it to say that I know way more than you do and anyone with a half a brain would agree with that.

That is the gist of my criticism of his commentary. Don't assail others for failing to study up on a bill while simultaneously refusing to give specific reasons why the bill will not work.

And I repeat for you Bill - I don't support this legislation but I'm not about to jump on gregg's back if he can't give tangible reasons to being an opponent.
Gregg appears to want to have a serious discussion on HR 3200, in particular in an adversarial role with those who are in favor of it, but anyone as far as that goes. I suggested that he quote specific pages/paragraphs to support his position. If he's read the bill, he should be able to do that, and we can read those same pages/paragraphs to see if we have the same interpretation. He did mention a few specific things in the bill he disagrees with, but without page/paragraph citation.

I've only read a few bits and pieces of the bill. Given the monstrosity it is, I don't plan on trying to read more of it until we finally get a revised version, whenever that may be. As an exception, I would probably read more pieces in the draft bill in connection with discussions about specific things that are/aren't in there. I would hope that Congress could write a far shorter and simpler version before it actually comes to a vote, but I don't have much faith in them doing that. In the meantime, I think the draft version(s) are open to discussion, but we need chapter and verse.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates


Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to let Gregg tell us that. If you read the Fact Check link closely, it is a response to a chain e-mail written by some right wing blogger who does make a lot of claims (some pretty far out) without specifically supporting them in any detail. It's supposedly his/her personal "analysis" of the bill. I'd hardly consider it a mainstream right analysis of the bill, although there are a few of the main points of contention included. i.e. rationing, coverage or not for illegal aliens. It looks to me like "notorious" in this case means it received fairly wide circulation, not that it came from a mainstream right wing source.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

LOL.

Was about to comment on an increase in anon neg rep lately when I remembered that I briefly gave the "three little pigs" amnesty. Nice to know they've been screaming the whole time while on Ignore. :D

(Actually hoping it's just one guy with three names, particularly since "they" spell the same words wrong... :cool: )
Heh. This was one of many of your posts that made me laugh.

WELL TO GET TO THE SUBJECT,
It seems to me that we have two opposing parties spouting drivel but there are a few facts we all need to keep in mind.
1. absent any action, health care could very likely be too expensive for most companies to continue to buy for the employees.
2. we don't have a lot of extra money floating around, given the huge deficits we run.
3. the Chinese are buying all our bonds.
4. thus since the Chinese are rich and we are poor,we should have whatever plan the chinese have.;)
5. that way we could enjoy longer life, fewer worries and more free time to chase members of the opposite sex..

Succinct and more on point than most of us can manage:D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to let Gregg tell us that. If you read the Fact Check link closely, it is a response to a chain e-mail written by some right wing blogger who does make a lot of claims (some pretty far out) without specifically supporting them in any detail. It's supposedly his/her personal "analysis" of the bill. I'd hardly consider it a mainstream right analysis of the bill, although there are a few of the main points of contention included. i.e. rationing, coverage or not for illegal aliens. It looks to me like "notorious" in this case means it received fairly wide circulation, not that it came from a mainstream right wing source.
Gregg did bring up that very chain e-mail (or rather, a "published" version of it) in this post (first link).

So, throwing that fact check back into gregg's face is, while not necessarily civil, perfectly fair and reasonable.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

So,


this is what the doctors think of the Healthcare Bill.


FYI







The American Medical Association has weighed in on the president's
proposed health care delivery reform.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised
not to make any rash moves.



The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.



The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a
misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.


Pathologists yelled, "Over my
dead body!" while the Pediatricians
said, 'Oh, Grow up!'



The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.



Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The
Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic
Surgeon s said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter.."



The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists
were p!$$ed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought
the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the

heart to say no.



In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision
up to the a ssholes in Washington.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Gregg did bring up that very chain e-mail (or rather, a "published" version of it) in this post (first link).

So, throwing that fact check back into gregg's face is, while not necessarily civil, perfectly fair and reasonable.
Fair enough. The list of items in Gregg's link and the one in the Fact Check link don't appear to be identical, although they do share quite a few bullet points. It's still up to Gregg to tell us if he's read HR 3200.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Ok... by far, most Americans oppose HR 3200, that's common knowledge, and that's why Obama has his panties in a bunch.

And that's also why the left is throwing the kitchen sink at you and I, trying to smear us and discredit us by any means.

I want to take one post to tell you that we, the majority, are right. Don't get discouraged. Let me tell you about the shady things the left is doing to intimidate you and discourage you.

Let's start with my post. I am ever so eager to talk about the specifics of HR 3200 but the Obama followers, kinda like zombies, are afraid to talk about it. (That's warning sign #1 by the way, they're afraid to talk about the bill.)

Ok, so I get made fun of asking to talk about something that is real, but they keep coming after me. Here's a couple gems:

You think I am one of the people you are whining about...are you just kidding around or are you really that stupid? I ask this honestly because your posts are dangerously close to being Glenn Beck like...are you gonna cry too? :p

Why would I want to discuss a bill I don't support? Why would I care to engage with you anyways, someone who obviously isnt going to change their mind or go into any discussion with an open mind? You don't like the bill, that is great you dont have to like it. But I am not going to talk to you just so you can feel validated in your beliefs and can spout off the rhetoric bring something of value to the discussion and be willing to listen to what others have to say or whats the point?

But hey Glenn, if it makes you feel like more of a man to call me a coward and accuse me of being one of the big bad liberals...you go right ahead! :D

I dont care about the points you made...you invalidated them by whining like a 2 year old about those big bad liberals and how they are ruining your country :p

And get some new bulletpoints...even Faux has moved on from some of them :D

I asked to talk about the specifics of HR 3200, and this is what the nonAmerican guy came up with. Personal attacks. Oh boy, if only he had the courage to debate the issue.

gregg- You might find that people read past the first few lines if you don't start your post by maligning the people you might want to enlighten. I am not sure I like the bill but anything that starts out by condescendingly insulting people shuts me off. I never made it past the first few lines to see what everyone is all in a twist about.

And a followup quote: you, sir, are no better than the liberal idiots. An awful lot of insult and rhetoric but not much substance. On ignore you go. les

This chick obviously is worthless. She claims to single me out because I'm emotional. When other people "emotiaonally" attack me, no less.

I gave this stupid woman nothing but facts, she chose to ignore them. She claims to care about this debate, yet she blows off facts.

This is the lousy types of people we're dealing with here, folks.

He has an interesting setup, then he finally gets to why he's opposed to "Socialized" Medicine:


That's quite the little straw man drawn up there. Of course, it really has nothing to do with the bill at hand (That's not Reagan's fault, he's dead). Not sure how one equates creating a new insurance option with a dictation that doctors can only have so many patients, and cities can only have so many doctors. Seems like quite a stretch. Perhaps you, the provider of Reagan's perspective, can underline exactly how on Earth you got from point A to point B on that one.

Of course, its amusing to see his slippery slope argument in place. Get the government involved in medicine, and before you know it, your kids are robots! When you listen to the audio on this, can you hear his tin foil hat rustling in the background?

And again.... another little man, ignoring the substance, trying to discredit me from some sort of Reagan conspiracy theory? lol this one is classic... diverting attention from the facts for something totally moronic, i love it :)

____________


Bottom line. We're all on the same side. Very few Americans support HR 3200.

And those fools that do support HR 3200 are desparate. Treat them as you would treat an alcoholic. They lie and deflect. Keep on topic. If they're afraid to talk about the specifics of HR 3200, then they're *******. They're Obama soldiers, taking marching orders. HR 3200 is the only thing to talk about. HR 3200 is what these people are afraid to talk about.

HR 3200 is the issue. Make sure you don't let these morons change the subject - the subject is HR 3200.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to let Gregg tell us that. If you read the Fact Check link closely, it is a response to a chain e-mail written by some right wing blogger who does make a lot of claims (some pretty far out) without specifically supporting them in any detail. It's supposedly his/her personal "analysis" of the bill. I'd hardly consider it a mainstream right analysis of the bill, although there are a few of the main points of contention included. i.e. rationing, coverage or not for illegal aliens. It looks to me like "notorious" in this case means it received fairly wide circulation, not that it came from a mainstream right wing source.

Don't rely on me. Christ. I'm begging people to look at the actual text of HR 3200. It speaks for itself, I'm just a guy asking people to look at it.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Gregg did bring up that very chain e-mail (or rather, a "published" version of it) in this post (first link).

So, throwing that fact check back into gregg's face is, while not necessarily civil, perfectly fair and reasonable.

I have never had a single email about HR 3200. If there's one going around, it's just because many people feel the same way I do. Which has been well documented...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Gregg appears to want to have a serious discussion on HR 3200, in particular in an adversarial role with those who are in favor of it, but anyone as far as that goes. I suggested that he quote specific pages/paragraphs to support his position. If he's read the bill, he should be able to do that, and we can read those same pages/paragraphs to see if we have the same interpretation. He did mention a few specific things in the bill he disagrees with, but without page/paragraph citation.

I've only read a few bits and pieces of the bill. Given the monstrosity it is, I don't plan on trying to read more of it until we finally get a revised version, whenever that may be. As an exception, I would probably read more pieces in the draft bill in connection with discussions about specific things that are/aren't in there. I would hope that Congress could write a far shorter and simpler version before it actually comes to a vote, but I don't have much faith in them doing that. In the meantime, I think the draft version(s) are open to discussion, but we need chapter and verse.

So do I finally have one taker? I have already quoted specific articles. Hoping Congress would simplify this, or anything, is stupid - it doesn't make them money!

Look Bill, I'm excited that finally one person is willing to look into the specifics of HR 3200. (Unlike the all the liberals, they're afraid to look into it.) But...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

So do I finally have one taker? I have already quoted specific articles. Hoping Congress would simplify this, or anything, is stupid - it doesn't make them money!

Look Bill, I'm excited that finally one person is willing to look into the specifics of HR 3200. (Unlike the all the liberals, they're afraid to look into it.) But...

... adverserial or not.... everyone seems afraid to discuss HR 3200 so far...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Man I am glad I have greg on ignore...that is a lot of consecutive posts! :p
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

...yet you never talk about the specifics of HR 3200.



What facts?

Its hard to discuss facts when the current bill won't be the bill they vote on
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Man I am glad I have greg on ignore...that is a lot of consecutive posts! :p

LOL. It really saves screen estate. BTW, that poster's name is gregg, not greg. Gregs, like China, are still cool.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Its hard to discuss facts when the current bill won't be the bill they vote on

Oh please stop making excuses for him...he wants to discuss the specifics of THAT bill, HR 3200 he said it about 3 dozen times yet he never actually cites anything from the bill itself to discuss...he is a hypocrit and a troll nothing more :)
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Oh please stop making excuses for him...he wants to discuss the specifics of THAT bill, HR 3200 he said it about 3 dozen times yet he never actually cites anything from the bill itself to discuss...he is a hypocrit and a troll nothing more :)

Well, if he is the caliber of person that is oppposing what ever it is he is opposing (I can't figure out what that is and now he is an empty line I never will)) then his eloquent posts are sure to convince the masses. :p I would much rather read some of the other folks that have got some good points about what is wrong with the thing (and there are plenty of holes in the current proposal)
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates

Ya'll do realize that most congressmen have not read the bill either and that they most likely never will, right? Even the one they vote on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top