Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Ah yes, the "unnamed 40+ million." Come on, the talking point is 47 million, get it right.
Ah yes, the "unnamed 40+ million." Come on, the talking point is 47 million, get it right.
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.
Obama V: For Vendetta
- Thread starter Red Cloud
- Start date
- Status
duper
Well-known member
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I actually don't have any friends who post in political threads, so I'm not sure what you mean, there, but both Beantown6 and myself have presented evidence that people die in this country because they have no health insurance. Evidence that only a fool would try to require, because that fact is obvious to anyone. Without health insurance, many very curable diseases are lethal.
Now, you give me evidence of the number of people whose lives are saved by our system, who would die in either the Canadian or Swedish system. And keep in mind, both Canada and Sweden were among the 36 countries that ranked ahead of us the last time the WHO ranked national health care systems. (which, granted, has been several years)
But really, since you have proved once again that you are not interested in conversation, but only in your own correctness, belligerence and arrogance, I think I'm done here for now.
I actually don't have any friends who post in political threads, so I'm not sure what you mean, there, but both Beantown6 and myself have presented evidence that people die in this country because they have no health insurance. Evidence that only a fool would try to require, because that fact is obvious to anyone. Without health insurance, many very curable diseases are lethal.
Now, you give me evidence of the number of people whose lives are saved by our system, who would die in either the Canadian or Swedish system. And keep in mind, both Canada and Sweden were among the 36 countries that ranked ahead of us the last time the WHO ranked national health care systems. (which, granted, has been several years)
But really, since you have proved once again that you are not interested in conversation, but only in your own correctness, belligerence and arrogance, I think I'm done here for now.
duper
Well-known member
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Additional, beyond how many people currently die because they can't afford a doctor? I suppose that it's hard to say whether this will happen or not. In any case, what seems clear is that under our current system, health care is woefully lacking. Something needs to be done.
Additional, beyond how many people currently die because they can't afford a doctor? I suppose that it's hard to say whether this will happen or not. In any case, what seems clear is that under our current system, health care is woefully lacking. Something needs to be done.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
duper
Well-known member
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
You guys are arguing the wrong question. Of course there are preventable deaths under the current system, and of course there would be preventable deaths under any new system - so that is NOT a valid (nor interesting) standard by which to judge the validity of a system.
Nobody wants the government to do everything it possibly could to eliminate preventable deaths - nobody. If you think you do, then when's the last time you wrote to your congressman asking him to outlaw cars, cigarettes, and alcohol? Those by far lead to more preventable deaths than the current or any other health care system possibly ever could.
You guys are arguing the wrong question. Of course there are preventable deaths under the current system, and of course there would be preventable deaths under any new system - so that is NOT a valid (nor interesting) standard by which to judge the validity of a system.
Nobody wants the government to do everything it possibly could to eliminate preventable deaths - nobody. If you think you do, then when's the last time you wrote to your congressman asking him to outlaw cars, cigarettes, and alcohol? Those by far lead to more preventable deaths than the current or any other health care system possibly ever could.
duper
Well-known member
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Don't bother, I'll come and pop all of your bubbles for the sake of my own amusement.
I like that.
Don't bother, I'll come and pop all of your bubbles for the sake of my own amusement.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I did not say that you were liberal, but I did say that you used the typical liberal tactics of insulting and name calling.
As for what you expected from the GOP, I won't disagree with you there. However, what scares the bejeebers out of most Americans is that what the Dems are pushing (across the board) has pushed this country in a direction from which it may never recover.
I did not say that you were liberal, but I did say that you used the typical liberal tactics of insulting and name calling.
As for what you expected from the GOP, I won't disagree with you there. However, what scares the bejeebers out of most Americans is that what the Dems are pushing (across the board) has pushed this country in a direction from which it may never recover.
ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I'm not sure how relevant it is if he said it in 2003. Perhaps as he's gotten deeper into the issue its not something he believes in?
As Obama himself explained in the NH town hall, a public option would have to be self sustaining from premiums, and use no taxpayer money to keep it going. Were that written into law, would you still have a problem with it?
You can say that again. You're clearly long overdue to have your head examined. Maybe if you had gone in you would have saved the rest of us from hours of your boring posts. 
I'm not sure how relevant it is if he said it in 2003. Perhaps as he's gotten deeper into the issue its not something he believes in?
As Obama himself explained in the NH town hall, a public option would have to be self sustaining from premiums, and use no taxpayer money to keep it going. Were that written into law, would you still have a problem with it?
You can say that again. You're clearly long overdue to have your head examined.
Maybe if you had gone in you would have saved the rest of us from hours of your boring posts.
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
I don't think anyone on here disagrees with you about something needing to be done. It's more a question of whether we try to fix the current system versus scraping it and replacing it with something totally different. We need to make health insurance affordable for more people, we need tort reform to help keep costs down, we need to ensure that people aren't excluded because of pre-existing conditions, we need to make it more available across state lines, we need much better electronic record keeping, those types of things.
I don't think there is any question it will happen. If people have to wait a lot longer to see a doctor or have a procedure done, some of them are going to die first.
I don't think anyone on here disagrees with you about something needing to be done. It's more a question of whether we try to fix the current system versus scraping it and replacing it with something totally different. We need to make health insurance affordable for more people, we need tort reform to help keep costs down, we need to ensure that people aren't excluded because of pre-existing conditions, we need to make it more available across state lines, we need much better electronic record keeping, those types of things.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
You can say that again. You're clearly long overdue to have your head examined.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Most of which this bill seeks to address. Also, if you already have employer based insurance (or Medicare) what changes does this bring about except for the very provisions you're advocating in your post, except for tort reform.
About tort reform - didn't Florida pass a law severely restricting amounts lawyers could win in state court for damages/pain & suffering or something like that. I thought the limit was 500K. If it was tougher to win money in court in that state, shouldn't their health care costs be significantly lower than everybody else's? I don't know if they are, but I've never heard that to be the case.
Most of which this bill seeks to address. Also, if you already have employer based insurance (or Medicare) what changes does this bring about except for the very provisions you're advocating in your post, except for tort reform.
About tort reform - didn't Florida pass a law severely restricting amounts lawyers could win in state court for damages/pain & suffering or something like that. I thought the limit was 500K. If it was tougher to win money in court in that state, shouldn't their health care costs be significantly lower than everybody else's? I don't know if they are, but I've never heard that to be the case.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Oh too bad. I'm nothing but nice to the man and all I get in return is personal attacks. He used to be a lot friendlier.
Oh too bad. I'm nothing but nice to the man and all I get in return is personal attacks. He used to be a lot friendlier.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Settle down Veruca, it is going to be ok
You were done before you started.
Settle down Veruca, it is going to be ok
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta
Sadly, I don't believe our Congress is capable of following through on any self sustaining public option with an avoidance of using taxpayer money, regardless of what is written into law. They will find ways around those limitations. The reason Social Security and Medicare have trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities is because Congress long ago started stealing money that was supposed to support those programs and used it elsewhere. They robbed Peter to pay Paul.
If Obama truly has changed his mind about single payer, then he needs to make a statement saying he now believes he was wrong in his earlier views on it and has changed his position. Otherwise we're left with him saying two contradictory things and he's not going to win a lot of trust on that basis.
Sadly, I don't believe our Congress is capable of following through on any self sustaining public option with an avoidance of using taxpayer money, regardless of what is written into law. They will find ways around those limitations. The reason Social Security and Medicare have trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities is because Congress long ago started stealing money that was supposed to support those programs and used it elsewhere. They robbed Peter to pay Paul.
- Status