Sarah Palin, the NHS, Morality, etc...
Emma
I was wondering if you had been discussing Sarah Palin and
her remarks about the British NHS while I was away.
I see Rob and Randy were discussing her and the morality of
a public health service, but I can't find the thread now.
Anyway, I am annoyed! Of course a public health service is
morally right. I'm right wing, as you know, but all right
wing parties here support a public health service. In fact,
I don't know a single political party that *doesn't* support
it.
I'm annoyed because Sarah Palin said it's "evil"! Evil???
What is evil about providing health care for all? What
particular commandment does that break??
I'm also annoyed because a lot of commentators in the US
have been telling outright lies! Some were telling lies about
Stephen Hawking, but here he is defending the NHS:
I'm further annoyed (gosh, I need another holiday!) by the
release of the Libyan terrorist by our **foolish** **evil** liberal
government!! But that's another story...
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
> I was wondering if you had been discussing Sarah Palin and
> her remarks about the British NHS while I was away.
> I see Rob and Randy were discussing her and the morality of
> a public health service, but I can't find the thread now.
>
> Anyway, I am annoyed! Of course a public health service is
> morally right. I'm right wing, as you know, but all right
> wing parties here support a public health service. In fact,
> I don't know a single political party that *doesn't* support
> it.
> I'm annoyed because Sarah Palin said it's "evil"! Evil???
> What is evil about providing health care for all? What
> particular commandment does that break??
I was careful not to get into the details of the political
aspects of this. Because this is not this or that
political issue about health care, but about the fact
that Sarah Palin *tells lies* about what the bill is
in order to discredit her opponents and their policies.
What she said is that under this bill, the government
would set up "death panels" to decide whether people
like her Down-syndrome son were productive enough
people to deserve to live or die. Of course that
is an outrageous lie, and lying like that violates tons
of commandments.
That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
enemy and not bother to look anything up.
So Palin talked about the health care bill's "death panels";
Senator Grassley warned we should be "frightened",
and that the government was supporting
euthanasia and would "kill grandma", other liars
mentioned that the bill would pay for abortions
and cover (God forbid) "illegal aliens".
If Christianity were true, these folks will be spending
eternity bathing in boiling excrement. The fact
that they're not scared to "fear and trembling"
about that makes me wonder that they're not
really Christian.
Humorous was our "Investors Business Daily"
editorial, raging of how Obama's proposal would bring
us closer to the dreaded UK NHS:
"...People such as scientist Stephen Hawking
wouldn't have a chance in the UK,
where the National Health Service would say
the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps,
is essentially worthless..." Glad to know
that these folks, who are supposedly
advising us on the subtleties of the
stock market, have such a handle on
the facts, like **what country the
most brilliant scientist in the world lives in**.
Oh, and is the US under Obama proposing
a National Health Service????
Far from it! That idea is much too politically
"radical-socialist" to get off the ground here.
Obama isn't proposing an NHS. He isn't
even proposing a single-payer insurance
system, such as extending Medicare for all.
What all this hullaballoo is about is something
called the *public option*. It is
available to people who are unemployed,
or whose employers can't afford to include
private insurance in a benefits package:
these people would be offered access
to a National Insurance Exchange, which
would offer them a marketplace of insurance
plans ****one**** of which, called the
"public option" would be a government-run
insurance plan in competition with
the private plans. There would still
be private insurers. It's just that there
would also be a public plan, and then
only for a certain category of people!
The private insurer oligopolies, who have
a stranglehold on insurance here,
don't like the fact that there would be
**one** private option that would
compete with them and eat into their
profits. At a time when a large fraction
of bankruptcies are due to people
not being able to afford either
health care or even health insurance
premiums, executives at the
ologopolies are earning million dollar
bonuses.
But to keep their strangleholds and
their bonuses, these folks are joining
up with Republican sodomites
like Palin and Grassley to tell
outrageous lies about any attempts
to modify the broken American
health care system. The public option
has not yet been passed, and
is under tremendous political pressure.
Oh, and Investors Business Daily, forced
to retract their silly editorial implying
that Hawking didn't live in the UK
and would be dead if he had, retreated
to the non-apology saying "oh well,
that's because he's the world's leading
scientist, so they decided not to kill HIM."
(Of course Hawking was diagnosed
with ALS in 1963, and was treated
by the NHS even when he was still a
mediocre graduate student at
Cambridge and, like Einstein years
before, had yet to show any signs
of the world-shaking scientist he was to become.)
Never mind Republican *politics* being evil.
They are condemned as evil just on the
basis of their disgusting lies. On the
basis of their putting stumbling blocks
before the blind -- in many cases, not
just deceiving the blind, but poking people's
eyes out to create more blind people
to put stumbling blocks before!
Yuck.
If Christianity is true, there's going to be
a housing crisis in Hell.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Emma"
> Anyway, I am annoyed! Of course a public health service is
> morally right. I'm right wing, as you know, but all right
> wing parties here support a public health service. In fact,
> I don't know a single political party that *doesn't* support
> it.
> I'm annoyed because Sarah Palin said it's "evil"! Evil???
> What is evil about providing health care for all? What
> particular commandment does that break??
The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
an evil. Yes, Christians should learn to do good even for their enemies. But
the idea of *rewarding* good for those who do not deserve it is indeed an
"evil."
Here in the US outrage over the "public option" is at least partly fueled by
older people, including Democrats, who are concerned their Medicare coverage
will be "rationed." Rationed health care is obviously already taking place
in Great Britain, and the people don't know anything different.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Emma"
...
> Here in the US outrage over the "public option" is at least partly fueled by
> older people, including Democrats, who are concerned their Medicare coverage
> will be "rationed."
No. It's being fueled by right-wing pundits and interest-group-funded
organizations, just like Scaife and his swiftboaters, designed to
tell lies about how the public option will kill grandma.
Luckily Christianity is false. Otherwise, these guys when
they die will be sitting in an eternity of boiling excrement.
> Rationed health care is obviously already taking place
> in Great Britain, and the people don't know anything different.
Oh, so you think the people in GB are too dumb or insular to
realize what a health care paradise we live in over here.
Yuck.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 22, 11:10 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > I was wondering if you had been discussing Sarah Palin and
> > her remarks about the British NHS while I was away.
> > I see Rob and Randy were discussing her and the morality of
> > a public health service, but I can't find the thread now.
> >
> > Anyway, I am annoyed! Of course a public health service is
> > morally right. I'm right wing, as you know, but all right
> > wing parties here support a public health service. In fact,
> > I don't know a single political party that *doesn't* support
> > it.
> > I'm annoyed because Sarah Palin said it's "evil"! Evil???
> > What is evil about providing health care for all? What
> > particular commandment does that break??
>
> I was careful not to get into the details of the political
> aspects of this. Because this is not this or that
> political issue about health care, but about the fact
> that Sarah Palin *tells lies* about what the bill is
> in order to discredit her opponents and their policies.
>
> What she said is that under this bill, the government
> would set up "death panels" to decide whether people
> like her Down-syndrome son were productive enough
> people to deserve to live or die. Of course that
> is an outrageous lie
Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
the topic I saw a few days ago. They admitted that decisions on extreme
care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance companies.
(Which can decide on whether or to what extent they will provide health
BENEFITS to seriously ill people.)
So Palin is entirely correct, that SOME sort of panel or person will
ultimately have to decide, for instance, whether or not to give the
liver transplant to a 70 y/o alcoholic to preserve his life.
So, whether it's the insurance company or a government panel, SOMEONE
other than the doctor and patient will have to decide how heatl care is
to be rationed.
And since the liberal democrats in government do so darn well at
everything they do, then certainly we want a GOVERNMENT panel deciding
those decisions.
Yes, she is using somewhat inflammatory language--but YOUR side is using
inflammatory language as well.
>
> That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
> and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
> of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
> about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
What an elitist attitude! Anyone who disagrees with the liberals is
"deluded", "manipulated", "uninformed", and every other bad word, right?
God forbid that anyone disagree with a program touted by the democratic
party, right?
> Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
> and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
> going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
> enemy and not bother to look anything up.
>
> So Palin talked about the health care bill's "death panels";
which exist NOW and will under Obama
> Senator Grassley warned we should be "frightened",
> and that the government was supporting
> euthanasia and would "kill grandma",
Since the elderly tend to vote conservative on issues, would it not be
in the democrats' self-interest to focus on aiding the younger people,
and cutting back on extraordiary care for the elderly?
other liars
> mentioned that the bill would pay for abortions
It ABSOLUTELY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was admitted in the
discussion.
SOME health plans do provide for contraception and abortion options, and
if the government funds the healthcare costs of someone who choses one
of THOSE programs, then by extension tax payer dollars WOULD go toward
abortion if the plan member elects to have one.
Why do you ignore that FACT?
That too hard for you to understand?
Could it be that you're "deluded", "manipulated", or "uninformed"
> and cover (God forbid) "illegal aliens".
I thought you DO support spending tax payer dollars on illegal aliens'
education and health care. Don't you?
Obama's plan does not specifically cover illegal aliens' health
care...UNLESS they are married to a citizen, and then tax payers WOULD
fund the illegal if the citizen obtained a family health care plan that
covers the spouse
Rob Strom
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
...
> Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> the topic I saw a few days ago.
Source?
> They admitted that decisions on extreme
> care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance companies.
> (Which can decide on whether or to what extent they will provide health
> BENEFITS to seriously ill people.)
The argument was that the public option would introduce
death panels, specifically that because the public option
was in place, a group would be set up to decide
whether Sarah Palin's boy with Down's syndrome
was "sufficiently productive" to live.
That argument is bogus.
>
> So Palin is entirely correct, that SOME sort of panel or person will
> ultimately have to decide, for instance, whether or not to give the
> liver transplant to a 70 y/o alcoholic to preserve his life.
She was talking about her boy, and she was talking about
something *new* created by the public option.
> So, whether it's the insurance company or a government panel, SOMEONE
> other than the doctor and patient will have to decide how heatl care is
> to be rationed.
She wasn't talking about the rationing concept in general;
she was talking about specifically the public option and
the death panels it would set up for her baby.
>
> And since the liberal democrats in government do so darn well at
> everything they do, then certainly we want a GOVERNMENT panel deciding
> those decisions.
>
> Yes, she is using somewhat inflammatory language--but YOUR side is using
> inflammatory language as well.
She's telling lies.
...
>
> > That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
> > and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
> > of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
> > about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
>
> What an elitist attitude!
Thank you very much, and may I now and forever be elitist.
> Anyone who disagrees with the liberals is
> "deluded", "manipulated", "uninformed", and every other bad word, right?
No. People who tell things that are untrue hoping that the audience
doesn't check it is appealing to ignorance.
Whether it's Palin and Grassley making stuff up about
the public option or Seldon saying incorrect things about Judaism
to an audience of Pentecostalists who he knows
won't bother to check. It's putting a stumbling block
before the blind and it's a serious Biblical sin.
>
> God forbid that anyone disagree with a program touted by the democratic
> party, right?
You can disagree all you want but don't tell lies about it.
>
> > Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
> > and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
> > going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
> > enemy and not bother to look anything up.
>
> > So Palin talked about the health care bill's "death panels";
>
> which exist NOW and will under Obama
She's talking about things allegedly introduced by the new bill.
>
> > Senator Grassley warned we should be "frightened",
> > and that the government was supporting
> > euthanasia and would "kill grandma",
>
> Since the elderly tend to vote conservative on issues, would it not be
> in the democrats' self-interest to focus on aiding the younger people,
> and cutting back on extraordiary care for the elderly?
Scaring old people by telling them that the bill
supports euthanasia when it doesn't is extraordinarily
evil. It violates both the sections of the Bible
forbidding you to lie and the sections of the Bible
forbidding you from being a Republican.
>
> other liars
>
> > mentioned that the bill would pay for abortions
>
> It ABSOLUTELY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was admitted in the
> discussion.
No it wasn't. You are 200000% wrong.
Here are the President's own words, from yesterday's address:
"Let’s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get
health insurance under reform. That’s not true. Illegal immigrants
would not be covered. That idea has never even been on the table. Some
are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under
reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax
dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform. And as every
credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-
called "death panels" – an offensive notion to me and to the American
people. These are phony claims meant to divide us."
>
> SOME health plans do provide for contraception and abortion options, and
> if the government funds the healthcare costs of someone who choses one
> of THOSE programs, then by extension tax payer dollars WOULD go toward
> abortion if the plan member elects to have one.
>
> Why do you ignore that FACT?
Because it's not introduced by the public plan.
>
> That too hard for you to understand?
>
The debate was about the public option. We're not
talking about anything already in the system, which
would be there whether the feature is included in the
bill or not. We are talking about reasons given
for voting against the option. Anything that doesn't
change from the option shouldn't be a reason
to scare people into voting it down.
...
> I thought you DO support spending tax payer dollars on illegal aliens'
> education and health care. Don't you?
I happen to support the Bible, and so I do. That doesn't mean
that it is correct to lie and say that the public option puts
this coverage in when it actually doesn't.
>
> Obama's plan does not specifically cover illegal aliens' health
> care...UNLESS they are married to a citizen, and then tax payers WOULD
> fund the illegal if the citizen obtained a family health care plan that
> covers the spouse
If they're married to a citizen, they are not aliens any more so
the argument doesn't make sense.
I don't know why you're asking these questions. If you're a
Christian,
you're obviously going to vote for the President's plan anyhow,
since it's CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE. You don't want to find
yourself in the deepest levels of hell when you die, right, so
aren't you supporting the plan????
--
Rob Strom
Emma
Rob Strom says...
>
>
>I was careful not to get into the details of the political
>aspects of this. Because this is not this or that
>political issue about health care, but about the fact
>that Sarah Palin *tells lies* about what the bill is
>in order to discredit her opponents and their policies.
>
>What she said is that under this bill, the government
>would set up "death panels" to decide whether people
>like her Down-syndrome son were productive enough
>people to deserve to live or die. Of course that
>is an outrageous lie, and lying like that violates tons
>of commandments.
Yes, and as you mention later on, people like her made
a similar argument about Stephen Hawking, saying that he
would die under an NHS system. That's an outrageous lie
because, as you know, Stephen Hawking is British and treated by the
NHS!
>That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
>and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
>of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
>about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
>Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
>and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
>going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
>enemy and not bother to look anything up.
Aren't there also Republicans who favour a public
health service?
>So Palin talked about the health care bill's "death panels";
>Senator Grassley warned we should be "frightened",
>and that the government was supporting
>euthanasia and would "kill grandma", other liars
>mentioned that the bill would pay for abortions
>and cover (God forbid) "illegal aliens".
>
>If Christianity were true, these folks will be spending
>eternity bathing in boiling excrement. The fact
>that they're not scared to "fear and trembling"
>about that makes me wonder that they're not
>really Christian.
>
>Humorous was our "Investors Business Daily"
>editorial, raging of how Obama's proposal would bring
>us closer to the dreaded UK NHS:
>"...People such as scientist Stephen Hawking
>wouldn't have a chance in the UK,
>where the National Health Service would say
>the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps,
>is essentially worthless..." Glad to know
>that these folks, who are supposedly
>advising us on the subtleties of the
>stock market, have such a handle on
>the facts, like **what country the
>most brilliant scientist in the world lives in**.
Yes, that was picked up by our media here. It was
unbelievably stupid. I suppose it's because Stephen
Hawking's voice simulator has an American accent!
>Oh, and is the US under Obama proposing
>a National Health Service????
>
>Far from it! That idea is much too politically
>"radical-socialist" to get off the ground here.
>Obama isn't proposing an NHS. He isn't
>even proposing a single-payer insurance
>system, such as extending Medicare for all.
>
>What all this hullaballoo is about is something
>called the *public option*. It is
>available to people who are unemployed,
>or whose employers can't afford to include
>private insurance in a benefits package:
>these people would be offered access
>to a National Insurance Exchange, which
>would offer them a marketplace of insurance
>plans ****one**** of which, called the
>"public option" would be a government-run
>insurance plan in competition with
>the private plans. There would still
>be private insurers. It's just that there
>would also be a public plan, and then
>only for a certain category of people!
That sounds reasonable to me.
By the way, I know your media has interviewed Brits
with a gripe against the NHS, but there are bound to
be some problems within such a massive service.
No system is perfect.
But, I'm sure that many of those
people they interviewed have no objection to a public health service
*in principle*. Many people just want reforms or more
government funding. They don't want it to be dismantled.
The same could be said for our education system. Most people
agree with free education for all, but they don't necessarily
think our system is perfect.
Exactly.
>Never mind Republican *politics* being evil.
>They are condemned as evil just on the
>basis of their disgusting lies. On the
>basis of their putting stumbling blocks
>before the blind -- in many cases, not
>just deceiving the blind, but poking people's
>eyes out to create more blind people
>to put stumbling blocks before!
>
>Yuck.
>
>If Christianity is true, there's going to be
>a housing crisis in Hell.
It seems that most of their arguments are easy to
discredit.
Doesn't your Democratic party have enough of a majority
to push this through anyway?
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Emma
>
>
>The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
>an evil.
Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits.
Anything else is discrimination, isn't it? And discrimination
is evil.
In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
don't have health care under your system?
> Yes, Christians should learn to do good even for their enemies. But
>the idea of *rewarding* good for those who do not deserve it is indeed an
>"evil."
Health care is not a reward, it's a right.
Anyway, God gives grace to those who don't deserve it.
>Here in the US outrage over the "public option" is at least partly fueled by
>older people, including Democrats, who are concerned their Medicare coverage
>will be "rationed." Rationed health care is obviously already taking place
>in Great Britain, and the people don't know anything different.
Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
vince garcia
>
> In article <Zeidnc6dY59B8gzX...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
> >
> >
> >The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
> >an evil.
>
> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits.
> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it? And discrimination
> is evil.
I disagree entirely. Nothing in the constitution says citizens are
entitled to free healtcare. Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
By your logic, everyone should get a free car since transportation is
necessary in this society, and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
to support the roads, to NOT give them a free car is discrimination if
they can't afford a car on their own
> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
> don't have health care under your system?
No one "deserves" it. Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
"deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my tax dollars!
And we do actually have free healthcare. Any indigent person has
healthcare for free. I know a jobless guy who goes down to the community
hospital weekly for his meds, and pays nothing because he is indigent.
But the liberals want to cover a higher-earning segment of society--MANY
OF WHOM COULD AFFORD BUT YET REFUSE TO PAY FOR--healthcare plans.
I make less then $20000 a year--and I pay for a heathcare plan, which is
why I had my gall bladder out.
>
> > Yes, Christians should learn to do good even for their enemies. But
> >the idea of *rewarding* good for those who do not deserve it is indeed an
> >"evil."
>
> Health care is not a reward, it's a right.
no
> Anyway, God gives grace to those who don't deserve it.
>
> >Here in the US outrage over the "public option" is at least partly fueled by
> >older people, including Democrats, who are concerned their Medicare coverage
> >will be "rationed." Rationed health care is obviously already taking place
> >in Great Britain, and the people don't know anything different.
>
> Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
> otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
not when you have to wait 6 mos to get into a dentist
>
> --
> ..EMMA..
> http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>> In article <Zeidnc6dY59B8gzX...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
>> >
>> >
>> >The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
>> >an evil.
>>
>> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits.
>> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it? And discrimination
>> is evil.
>
>I disagree entirely. Nothing in the constitution says citizens are
>entitled to free healtcare. Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
But there's also nothing to say that everyone should have
a right to free education either, is there? And yet most
people would surely agree that education is a right.
>By your logic, everyone should get a free car since transportation is
>necessary in this society, and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
>to support the roads, to NOT give them a free car is discrimination if
>they can't afford a car on their own
But there is public transport in the US.
>> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
>> don't have health care under your system?
>
>No one "deserves" it. Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
>"deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my tax dollars!
Would you withdraw free healthcare from criminals?
What about food? Do they deserve to eat?
>And we do actually have free healthcare. Any indigent person has
>healthcare for free. I know a jobless guy who goes down to the community
>hospital weekly for his meds, and pays nothing because he is indigent.
>
>But the liberals want to cover a higher-earning segment of society--MANY
>OF WHOM COULD AFFORD BUT YET REFUSE TO PAY FOR--healthcare plans.
>
>I make less then $20000 a year--and I pay for a heathcare plan, which is
>why I had my gall bladder out.
There are lots of people in your country who don't have cover
because they genuinely can't afford it.
In the UK, your operation would have been entirely free.
Anyway, there is private health care in the UK too.
We have a choice. Most people choose the NHS because in most
areas it has far more expertise.
>> > Yes, Christians should learn to do good even for their enemies. But
>> >the idea of *rewarding* good for those who do not deserve it is indeed an
>> >"evil."
>>
>> Health care is not a reward, it's a right.
>
>no
IMO it is a right. Just as education is a right.
>>
>> Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
>> otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
>
>not when you have to wait 6 mos to get into a dentist
>
As I said before, you will always be able to point to individual
cases and say "how dreadful", but *in general* it's good.
My husband used to work for the NHS doing pioneering work, and
so he/we see it as a very positive thing.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <7076af05-d5ae-4c3b-9efb-4799f982c...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Rob Strom says...
> ...
>
> >That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
> >and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
> >of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
> >about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
> >Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
> >and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
> >going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
> >enemy and not bother to look anything up.
>
> Aren't there also Republicans who favour a public
> health service?
Sadly, the politicians of neither party favor a public
health service. The President, who in the abstract
favors a single-payer insurance system, realizes
that such a proposal is a non-starter. (Although
he should start with the non-starter anyway,
and let himself get pushed to the compromise
position rather than starting with the compromise
and letting himself get pushed to a wishy-washy compromise
of the compromise!)
It is hard enough to get support for the *public option*
much less any kind of single payer system or
public health service. Remember that
a public option is at least 2 steps less socialistic
than a public health service. There is a
single-payer insurance plan, where the
government doesn't operate the health
*service*, but regulates the way health
*insurance* is administered. Even
this is too radical for the US today. Then there
is the public option, where the bulk of
health insurance is still private, but
about 15% of the population is eligible
to go to a health insurance exchange
to choose from a number of plans,
*one* of which is a publically-run plan.
The purpose of the public option
is to be a checks-and-balances
against the private oligopolies, by
competing with them and preventing
them from taking windfall profits
at the expense of raising premiums nationally.
There is only one elected representative
(the Senate's one independent liberal
who votes with the Democrats) who
has come out for a single-payer system.
As for Republicans, Senator Grassley,
who is leading an effort to bring a
conservative alternative to the floor,
has admitted that if he can't get
a significant number of radical
Republicans to join in, he'll vote against
even his own bill! Republicans have
enormous party discipline that Democrats
do not have, and don't care what
happens to health care, so long as Obama fails.
...
>
> >If Christianity is true, there's going to be
> >a housing crisis in Hell.
>
> It seems that most of their arguments are easy to
> discredit.
> Doesn't your Democratic party have enough of a majority
> to push this through anyway?
It's not clear.
There are two problems. As you know, we have two houses:
the "House" and the "Senate". Both have Democratic majorities.
But this is not a Parliamentary system like England, where
the government risks falling if enough people vote against
their party. The President is elected for 4 years no matter what.
Representatives can and do vote against their party for any
number of reasons. The bill has to pass both houses,
and if (as is likely) different versions of the bill pass the
two houses, it must go to a "conference committee" to
have the differences resolved, then the resolved bill
has to go back and be passed by both houses again.
Now the Democratic majority covers a broader spectrum
of political opinion than the Republicans. Republicans
have purged almost all their moderates (the most moderate
Republican, Spector of Pennsylvania, switched to the Democrats
this year because he wasn't insanely crazy enough for his Party).
They are a solid block of "whatever the President wants,
vote no". Democrats range from the lone liberal single-payer-
supporter
guy all the way to fairly conservative moderates from right-wing
states who are afraid to vote liberal for fear of losing the
next election to a Republican extremist. Many of them
are also in the pockets of big corporate interests (in this
case Big Insurance Companies and Big Drug Companies).
A lot of these conservative Democrats would prefer
dropping the public option. Many liberal Democrats
worry that having a bill with a compulsory buy-in requirement
(you *must* buy health insurance) but with no public
option is actually a bonanza for the insurance industry
(since currently lots of people have no insurance, and
now everybody would be forced to buy insurance,
but no competing public plan would drive down premiums).
So what's happening now is, politically, good for the
Republicans: Democrats fighting amonst themselves,
lots of lies and rumors circulating, angry scenes
at town halls, the President spending a lot of time
putting out fires and appearing vacillating and contradictory,
the danger of an impasse between conservative
Democrats who won't pass a bill with a public option
and liberal Democrats who won't pass a bill without one.
So the result is that public option is on shaky ground.
It probably has the votes in the House. In the Senate,
it may not. Another complication is that for most bills,
the Senate can "filibuster" (refuse to stop debate and
move the question to a vote). Quashing a filibuster
takes a 3/5 vote, not a simple majority. There
are 60 Democrats -- exactly 3/5, but Senator Kennedy
is ill with a brain tumor, and not every Democrat
can be guaranteed to break a filibuster. The
Democrats can use a filibuster-proof procedure
called "reconciliation" which doesn't require
a 3/5 vote, but they're under tremendous political
pressure to not do that.
Worse, the moneyed interests, as they did in Clinton's
day when he tried to pass health care reform, have
organized massive campaigns, including organizing
crowds of angry rightists, Jobbik-style, to
invade town hall meetings and give the impression
of "grass roots opposition" to allegedly
radical measures that would create
"death panels" and forced euthanasia. They
also propagate the myths of the sort Randy
has been repeating (remember he and
many other religious conservatives often
take things on faith without checking up)
that these reforms will come at the expense
of Medicare.
When one side is willing to play dirty and
the other side wants to give the impression
of reasonableness and bipartisanship,
the good guys have a good chance of losing.
I may have to move to the UK after all.
In the meantime, if you're in the US and are
reading this, PLEASE contact your senators
and representatives and insist that they
support the President and stand firm for the public option.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> In article <4A9296...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> >Emma wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <Zeidnc6dY59B8gzX...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
> >> >an evil.
> >>
> >> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits.
> >> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it? And discrimination
> >> is evil.
> >
> >I disagree entirely. Nothing in the constitution says citizens are
> >entitled to free healtcare. Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
>
> But there's also nothing to say that everyone should have
> a right to free education either, is there? And yet most
> people would surely agree that education is a right.
Apples and oranges. Just because you have one program doesn't mean you
can justify every other "good idea"
And it's not free education--my tax dollars provide the funding.
I don't want my taxes going to socialize medicine
>
> >By your logic, everyone should get a free car since transportation is
> >necessary in this society, and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
> >to support the roads, to NOT give them a free car is discrimination if
> >they can't afford a car on their own
>
> But there is public transport in the US.
Not the same thing. It sucks, and is not free. And public transportation
will not take you from LA to new york. You need your own car for that
>
> >> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
> >> don't have health care under your system?
> >
> >No one "deserves" it. Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
> >"deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my tax dollars!
>
> Would you withdraw free healthcare from criminals?
I support only the bare minimums for criminals. But since the UK
apparently believes in even being compassionate to islamic bombers, and
letting them go home to cheering crowds rather than dying in prison, i
suppose our two countries have differing attitudes.
Over here, rob might want to be compassionate to the guy, but most
americans would be delighted to see him die in prison.
And no, I would not give him cancer treatment in jail at tax payer
expense
> What about food? Do they deserve to eat?
Rice, beans, soy, and bread: The absolute bare minimums necessary to
sustain life.
Jail is supposed to be PUNISHMENT, not a comfortable experience
You're supposed to come out, glad to BE out, and not wanting to go back
>
> >And we do actually have free healthcare. Any indigent person has
> >healthcare for free. I know a jobless guy who goes down to the community
> >hospital weekly for his meds, and pays nothing because he is indigent.
> >
> >But the liberals want to cover a higher-earning segment of society--MANY
> >OF WHOM COULD AFFORD BUT YET REFUSE TO PAY FOR--healthcare plans.
> >
> >I make less then $20000 a year--and I pay for a heathcare plan, which is
> >why I had my gall bladder out.
>
> There are lots of people in your country who don't have cover
> because they genuinely can't afford it.
If I can afford it at making under 20k a year, anyone can. Those who
make less, get it free. Those who make more, make a choice on what they
will spend their money on. Often, it's a new car payment. Or a house
payment. Or Starbucks on a daily basis, or whaetever. Those things are
all luxuries. If you can afford to pay for a new car, rather than drive
a used car, you can afford to buy your own health care plan first, and
put the luxuries on the back burner.
I have no respect whatever for the democrats' hypocritical monkeying
with the health care system. I might accept their sincerity if they
STARTED with tort reform, but since they are in the pockets of the trial
lawyers, they talk about eliminating waste and overhauling the
system--yet make a point of exempting the ambulance chasers!
Think about that
>
> In the UK, your operation would have been entirely free.
If i could get it...
>
> Anyway, there is private health care in the UK too.
> We have a choice. Most people choose the NHS because in most
> areas it has far more expertise.
>
> >> > Yes, Christians should learn to do good even for their enemies. But
> >> >the idea of *rewarding* good for those who do not deserve it is indeed an
> >> >"evil."
> >>
> >> Health care is not a reward, it's a right.
> >
> >no
>
> IMO it is a right. Just as education is a right.
That's fine, but notion is not borne out by AMERICAN history. Education
has existed since the beginning. The idea of socialized medicine is a
modern thought here.
>
> >>
> >> Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
> >> otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
> >
> >not when you have to wait 6 mos to get into a dentist
> >
>
> As I said before, you will always be able to point to individual
> cases and say "how dreadful", but *in general* it's good.
I keep hearing horror tales about lines around the block to be accepted
by new doctrors or dentists. Are they mostly fiction?
>
> My husband used to work for the NHS doing pioneering work, and
> so he/we see it as a very positive thing.
>
Did you have a good vacation?
Terry Cross
> Emma wrote:
>
> > In article <4A9296DB.6...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
> > >Emma wrote:
>
> > >> In article <Zeidnc6dY59B8gzXnZ2dnUVZ_hCdn...@wavecable.com>, randy says...
>
> > >> >The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it is
> > >> >an evil.
>
> > >> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits.
> > >> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it? And discrimination
> > >> is evil.
>
> > >I disagree entirely. Nothing in the constitution says citizens are
> > >entitled to free healtcare. Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
>
> > But there's also nothing to say that everyone should have
> > a right to free education either, is there? And yet most
> > people would surely agree that education is a right.
>
> Apples and oranges. Just because you have one program doesn't mean you
> can justify every other "good idea"
>
> And it's not free education--my tax dollars provide the funding.
>
> I don't want my taxes going to socialize medicine
I don't want my tax dollars going to kill people in the Middle East,
financing thugs in Central America, fattening the coffers of weapons
labs, keeping small pox bacteria alive, enriching agro-businesses with
food subsidies, chasing "intellectual property thieves" on behalf of
the rich people in New York and Hollywood, or enforcing the drug laws.
But - ya know - we don't always get what we want. Let's make taxes
voluntary. Keep government small.
TCross
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves
>> health benefits. Anything else is discrimination,
>> isn't it? And discrimination is evil.
>
> I disagree entirely. Nothing in the Constitution
> says citizens are entitled to free healthcare.
> Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
>
> By your logic, everyone should get a free car,
> since transportation is necessary in this society,
> and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes to
> support the roads, to NOT give them a free car
> is discrimination if they can't afford a car on
> their own.
Well, not having a car is not the same thing
and we have public buses. :)
And we have lots of things that aren't in
our Constitution. We have public libraries.
Are they more important than staying alive?
>> In any case, what about all those who *do*
>> deserve it and currently don't have health
>> care under your system?
>
> No one "deserves" it.
Really? So your opinion of human life is so low
that you don't think that anyone deserves to live?
After all, that can be the difference for people.
> Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
> "deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my
> tax dollars!
Non sequitur. You want to claim that because
there are murderers and rapists, that proves
that *no one* deserves health care???
> And we do actually have free healthcare.
> Any indigent person has healthcare for free.
> I know a jobless guy who goes down to the
> community hospital weekly for his meds
> and pays nothing because he is indigent.
Hospitals typically bill you anyway.
> But the liberals want to cover a higher-earning
> segment of society--MANY OF WHOM COULD
> AFFORD BUT YET REFUSE TO PAY FOR--
> healthcare plans.
I don't know of any "higher earning" people that
refuse to pay for health care.
> I make less then $20000 a year--and I pay for
> a heathcare plan, which is why I had my gall
> bladder out.
I don't know how you afford it, unless you don't
have the bills the rest of us do. Especially when
a good health care coverage plan that doesn't
leave you paying for health care and at least
tens of thousands of dollars on top of that for
such an operation, can easily cost between
$500-$700 p/mth, depending on your age
and where you live. A friend of mine was paying
$700 p/mth to get his coverage and he didn't have
anything that fancy.
And even if I'm generous with figuring what is
held out of your $20,000 for taxes, you're still
only sitting at about $1300 p/mth. Now subtract
let's say, $400 p/mth for good health care that
doesn't say, "we'll pay 80% and you pay the
other 20% over the next 400 years and pray
that you never need anything like this again"
and that leaves you about $900 p/mth to
live on. So there is no way that you are paying
for health care and the same bills the rest of us
do, even just counting the necessities, period.
So nice try but your argument is simply ridiculous,
since you take unrealistic, extreme, exception to
the rule scenarios and try to pass them off as
being the norm. Even if we dropped my estimate
above to $300 p/mth, you still wouldn't make it.
And the fact is, that most of us simply cannot afford
health care, because it is too expensive and where
the government says qualifies as "poverty level"
financially, is well below what most people who
are way too poor to afford health care make.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The greatest Bible software out there is found at:
Two of the greatest Windows utilities ever made!
WindowsXP/Vista/7, 32/64 bit (replaces XP ver):
CacheMan7 Single: http://cac71.notlong.com
CacheMan7 Two : http://cac72.notlong.com
StartEd Pro : http://started.notlong.com
"Wisdom is in the sight of him who has understanding,
but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth."
- Proverbs 17:24
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>>> I disagree entirely. Nothing in the constitution
>>> says citizens are entitled to free healtcare.
>>> Heatlthcare a privilege, not a right.
>>
>> But there's also nothing to say that everyone
>> should have a right to free education either,
>> is there? And yet most people would surely
>> agree that education is a right.
>
> Apples and oranges.
Not when you bring the Constitution into it.
Neither is guaranteed under the Constitution
and therefore, under your own logic, it is
apples and apples.
> Just because you have one program doesn't
> mean you can justify every other "good idea".
Sure it does. Both are necessities for having any kind
of life and if one of them was to be taken away, many
people would choose to be somewhat dumber and
still alive, rather than smarter and dead. :)
> And it's not free education--my tax dollars provide
> the funding.
Non sequitur, since they would for health care as well.
So again, there is no difference and you're not making
any real arguments here in response to what is being
put forth in front of you.
> I don't want my taxes going to socialize medicine.
And now we come down to it. It isn't about what
people "deserve", nor about what is a right under
the Constitution, but rather, it's about Vince wanting
to choose what people pay for in their taxes. It is
a personal choice for you and that's all it is, since
you haven't had any other argument to make.
Well, guess what? We don't get to "opt out" of
what we don't want to pay for in our taxes. The
proof is that I don't want to pay for public schooling
and have my children learn that we all came from
a rock through mindless processes. Yet I have to!
So just FYI, the "But Vince doesn't want to!" shout,
is not a real argument. "I want" and "I don't want"
as individuals, has never been an argument that
works in the U.S. and it certainly isn't a Constitutional
argument by any stretch of the imagination. The will
of the people has never equated to, "Vince wants".
>>> By your logic, everyone should get a free car
>>> since transportation is necessary in this society
>>> and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
>>> to support the roads, to NOT give them a free
>>> car is discrimination if they can't afford a car
>>> on their own
>>
>> But there is public transport in the US.
>
> Not the same thing. It sucks, and is not free.
But it is cheap and if by "sucks", you mean they won't
take you to your door, then yes, it sucks. But again,
this isn't about "Vince wants". Nor does having a bus
equate to having a lung. :)
> And public transportation will not take you from
> LA to new york. You need your own car for that.
Non sequitur. You're just full of them! :)
Public transportation does not need to take you
from LA to NY, for you to eat and have a roof
over your head now does it Vince?
>> re: Prisoners
>> What about food? Do they deserve to eat?
>
> Rice, beans, soy, and bread: The absolute bare
> minimums necessary to sustain life.
>
> Jail is supposed to be PUNISHMENT,
> not a comfortable experience
>
> You're supposed to come out, glad to BE out
> and not wanting to go back.
True enough, but there's one very important thing
that you forget. And that is that you are classifying
all inmates as serious criminals. The reality is, that
you have people in there for having a joint in their
pocket. Or for not paying child support, because
they lost their job and are now indigent and in this
economy, can't find work (and to avoid this turning
into a child support argument, I think it should be
paid, but no, one can't just "get a job anywhere",
since no, McDonald's won't hire a guy who was
making decent money, because they know he won't
stay if a job comes along), or because they had some
speeding tickets they forgot about, or some other
stupid thing. And yes, you can say; "Hey, they
should have paid the tickets!", but that doesn't
change the fact that not all inmates are in there
for murder and/or rape, Vince. So now what?
That's a rhetorical question. :)
>>> And we do actually have free healthcare.
>>> Any indigent person has healthcare for free.
>>> I know a jobless guy who goes down to the
>>> community hospital weekly for his meds
>>> and pays nothing because he is indigent.
>>>
>>> But the liberals want to cover a higher-earning
>>> segment of society--MANY OF WHOM COULD
>>> AFFORD BUT YET REFUSE TO PAY FOR--
>>> healthcare plans.
>>>
>>> I make less then $20000 a year--and I pay
>>> for a heathcare plan, which is why I had
>>> my gall bladder out.
>>
>> There are lots of people in your country who don't
>> have cover because they genuinely can't afford it.
>
> If I can afford it at making under 20k a year, anyone can.
Again, non sequitur, since there is no way that you afford it
if you have the bills that the rest of us do with that $20,000.
> Those who make less, get it free.
That's not true at all! I make a lot less than that
and I do not get it for free. My wife makes less
than that and she does not get it for free. And
yes, you can talk about combining our income,
but even combined, it isn't much more than the
$20,000 you're talking about and furthermore,
there are many people who make less than that
and they do NOT get it for free! Your view of
what's what in the health care system is way
off, Vince! (: In fact, a family for a family of four,
one needs to make less than $1200 p/mth GROSS!
> Those who make more, make a choice on what
> they will spend their money on.
You act like "more than $20k = wealth and choices".
It in no way does! (: In fact, it takes a lot more
money than that to give us choices in health care!
> Often, it's a new car payment. Or a house payment.
So one shouldn't pay for a car? How does one get
to work? You're sure not going to buy one outright
making $20,000 p/yr, with normal bills. And in fact,
we cannot afford a car. Not between the price of
even a moderate payment, insurance and gas for it.
Even if you had a $250 p/mth payment and use the
car just to go to work (close) and grocery shopping
and laundry, you then have the following:
$250 payment
$100 insurance
$100 gas
------------------
$450 total
And so, even if we figure that you have a little over
$1,000 p/mth take home pay out of that $20,000 p/yr,
you're still not going to make it!
We can't afford a car. In fact, our only transportation
is a scooter that's sitting here broken down, because
we can't afford to get a belt for it and the impact gun
I would need to get the old one off, which totals up
to about $100. So my wife walks to work at 4 AM,
because we're too busy paying for things like rent
and food. And no, we don't live in a nice place and
no, we do not eat luxuriously. We're lucky if we get
to have any meat.
So I think you're living in fantasy land, Vince.
I think you're basing your conclusions on your
situation and that your situation doesn't involve
paying the real bills that the rest of us pay.
> Those things are all luxuries.
A roof over your head and transportation to get to
work, are not "luxuries", Vince. They are necessities.
> If you can afford to pay for a new car,
> rather than drive a used car, you can
> afford to buy your own health care plan
> first, and put the luxuries on the back
> burner.
Again Vince, you are showing how disconnected
you are from reality. You want to wave around
that $20,000, as if you represent the average
poor American. But there is no way that you are
paying the normal bills that people have, with that.
1) The only difference between a new and used car
(assuming a moderate new car), is the amount
of time you pay for it, not the payment. You
may be borrowing less for a used car, but you
do not have 5 years to pay it either. Learn a
but about finances first, before typing what
you type. A used car may put you in a position
in which you have a payment on a car that is
broken down and has no warranty and you
don't have the money to fix it and now you
can't get to work.
2) You make sure that you can get to work first,
which may mean paying for a reliable car
and living in it. Then you try to get a roof
over your head and then you worry about
food. Then you have to pay your utility bill,
which these days can be about $400 p/mth.
3) Now, when you total all of this up, even if
you own your car outright, you have a real
problem here on your $20,000 p/yr, which
even if we are really generous and say means
that you take home $1200 p/mth, takes out
of that take home pay, about $1400 p/mth.
Whoops! You're in the hole, Vince! :)
> I have no respect whatever for the democrats'
> hypocritical monkeying with the health care system.
And I have no respect for someone who paints
a false picture of what it takes to survive today
and who can't see past his own situation and
doesn't take the time to realize that maybe it
isn't all about their world. Think it over, Vince.
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>>
>> But there's also nothing to say that everyone should have
>> a right to free education either, is there? And yet most
>> people would surely agree that education is a right.
>
>Apples and oranges. Just because you have one program doesn't mean you
>can justify every other "good idea"
But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
>And it's not free education--my tax dollars provide the funding.
Same with the NHS
>I don't want my taxes going to socialize medicine
Why not? What's the point of educating the population if you
can't keep them healthy.
>>
>> >By your logic, everyone should get a free car since transportation is
>> >necessary in this society, and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
>> >to support the roads, to NOT give them a free car is discrimination if
>> >they can't afford a car on their own
>>
>> But there is public transport in the US.
>
>Not the same thing. It sucks, and is not free. And public transportation
>will not take you from LA to new york. You need your own car for that
But you don't need a car to survive. You do need education and
health care though.
Actually that's not quite true...some people do need a car
to survive and our government does provide cars
for those who need them to survive eg. someone like
Stephen Hawking would be eligible for a free car.
As far as I know, most of Western Europe has a similar sort of
system.
>> >> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
>> >> don't have health care under your system?
>> >
>> >No one "deserves" it. Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
>> >"deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my tax dollars!
>>
>> Would you withdraw free healthcare from criminals?
>
>I support only the bare minimums for criminals. But since the UK
>apparently believes in even being compassionate to islamic bombers, and
>letting them go home to cheering crowds rather than dying in prison, i
>suppose our two countries have differing attitudes.
I agree with you about the Islamic terrorist. It made me
angry too.
It seems there was some deal to do with oil! Evil!
Nothing to do with compassion.
Although we do have a law that says that someone who is
dying can be released from prison.
But, that doesn't mean that they *must* be released. And he
**should not** have been released. Never. He should have died
in jail.
>Over here, rob might want to be compassionate to the guy, but most
>americans would be delighted to see him die in prison.
>
>And no, I would not give him cancer treatment in jail at tax payer
>expense
Well Americans do have a different attitude towards
prisons, punishment, sickness, and so on. (I'm talking
in general, and not about terrorists, btw)
Many Americans seem to have sort of Victorian attitudes to this
compared to Western Europe eg. You still execute people, and you chain up
prisoners, your sentencing is tougher, your jails are tougher.
We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
from another country was eligible for a large house and free
car at taxpayers expense!
So obviously, our system is flawed too, but the American system
is far too harsh. For such a deeply religious country, it does
seem to lack compassion for the really deserving.
I think Obama is trying to bring some compassion into your
system, which is commendable IMO.
> There are lots of people in your country who don't have cover
>> because they genuinely can't afford it.
>
>If I can afford it at making under 20k a year, anyone can. Those who
>make less, get it free. Those who make more, make a choice on what they
>will spend their money on. Often, it's a new car payment. Or a house
>payment. Or Starbucks on a daily basis, or whaetever. Those things are
>all luxuries. If you can afford to pay for a new car, rather than drive
>a used car, you can afford to buy your own health care plan first, and
>put the luxuries on the back burner.
But you can't generalize like that. Everyone's personal/financial/
employment/family situation is different.
>>
>> As I said before, you will always be able to point to individual
>> cases and say "how dreadful", but *in general* it's good.
>
>I keep hearing horror tales about lines around the block to be accepted
>by new doctrors or dentists. Are they mostly fiction?
I've heard some of the things that your media is saying about the
NHS and they are nonsense, or out of date.
For the vast majority of people, the NHS provides a very
good service.
>Did you have a good vacation?
Yes, it was lovely, thanks. We went to France and then we
went to the countryside back here for a while (near Cambridge).
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
vince garcia
>
> In article <4A92BF...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> >Emma wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But there's also nothing to say that everyone should have
> >> a right to free education either, is there? And yet most
> >> people would surely agree that education is a right.
> >
> >Apples and oranges. Just because you have one program doesn't mean you
> >can justify every other "good idea"
>
> But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
> can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED. As i pointed out and
must reiterate, the idea of socialized medicine is modern. From 1776 to
the 20th century, the notion of the government's providing socialized
medicine to the people really didn't exist.
This is the heart of the problems and issue with liberals and the way
they look at the constitution. WE go by what the founding fathers
intended. A liberal goes by what he thinks is a good idea, so he thinks
something like gay marriage is constitutional.
>
> >And it's not free education--my tax dollars provide the funding.
>
> Same with the NHS
>
> >I don't want my taxes going to socialize medicine
>
> Why not? What's the point of educating the population if you
> can't keep them healthy.
I have explained this already. Want another reason? Adding another
trillion or two to the deficit is a bad idea.
>
> >>
> >> >By your logic, everyone should get a free car since transportation is
> >> >necessary in this society, and since everyone is equal, and pays taxes
> >> >to support the roads, to NOT give them a free car is discrimination if
> >> >they can't afford a car on their own
> >>
> >> But there is public transport in the US.
> >
> >Not the same thing. It sucks, and is not free. And public transportation
> >will not take you from LA to new york. You need your own car for that
>
> But you don't need a car to survive.
You virtually do.
You do need education and
> health care though.
> Actually that's not quite true...some people do need a car
> to survive and our government does provide cars
> for those who need them to survive eg. someone like
> Stephen Hawking would be eligible for a free car.
> As far as I know, most of Western Europe has a similar sort of
> system.
I can't figure out, then, why I can't seem to find too many liberals
who, if they had a magic wand, would swap the current system straight
over for the english.
I think that's telling.
>
> >> >> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
> >> >> don't have health care under your system?
> >> >
> >> >No one "deserves" it. Take rapists and murderers in prison--they don't
> >> >"deserve" free heathcare, but they get it with my tax dollars!
> >>
> >> Would you withdraw free healthcare from criminals?
> >
> >I support only the bare minimums for criminals. But since the UK
> >apparently believes in even being compassionate to islamic bombers, and
> >letting them go home to cheering crowds rather than dying in prison, i
> >suppose our two countries have differing attitudes.
>
> I agree with you about the Islamic terrorist. It made me
> angry too.
> It seems there was some deal to do with oil! Evil!
> Nothing to do with compassion.
Oh really!
I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
...too bad you guys have such strict gun laws.
>
> Although we do have a law that says that someone who is
> dying can be released from prison.
> But, that doesn't mean that they *must* be released. And he
> **should not** have been released. Never. He should have died
> in jail.
That don't sound too compassionate of you :)
>
> >Over here, rob might want to be compassionate to the guy, but most
> >americans would be delighted to see him die in prison.
> >
> >And no, I would not give him cancer treatment in jail at tax payer
> >expense
>
> Well Americans do have a different attitude towards
> prisons, punishment, sickness, and so on. (I'm talking
> in general, and not about terrorists, btw)
>
> Many Americans seem to have sort of Victorian attitudes to this
> compared to Western Europe eg. You still execute people,
...which is biblical, and which is the most effective means of
protecting society from repeat offenders
Had John Wayne Gacy, a democratic activist who worked for his local
democratic party offices, been executed the first time he was jailed for
molestation, over 30 kids would be alive today.
But some liberal judge decided some modest jail time would be more
appropriate for him, and he was released after 18 mos.
and you chain up
> prisoners, your sentencing is tougher, your jails are tougher.
>
> We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
> Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
> don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
> from another country was eligible for a large house and free
> car at taxpayers expense!
That is the ultimate fruit of a liberal, tolerant society, huh?
What you have is what WE would have if the liberals got to enact their
good ideas without the conservatives being there to stop them.
>
> So obviously, our system is flawed too, but the American system
> is far too harsh.
It's not remotely tough enough. The problem is with the VIOLENT
offenders. They should simply be executed for the good of society. As it
is, they do their time and get out, being made better, more violent
criminals than they went in as. Extenending MORE benefits, programs, and
tolerance toward violent thugs will not turn them into the sensitive new
age guys
non-violent criminals I can see doing something positive with
For such a deeply religious country, it does
> seem to lack compassion for the really deserving.
> I think Obama is trying to bring some compassion into your
> system, which is commendable IMO.
>
> > There are lots of people in your country who don't have cover
> >> because they genuinely can't afford it.
> >
> >If I can afford it at making under 20k a year, anyone can. Those who
> >make less, get it free. Those who make more, make a choice on what they
> >will spend their money on. Often, it's a new car payment. Or a house
> >payment. Or Starbucks on a daily basis, or whaetever. Those things are
> >all luxuries. If you can afford to pay for a new car, rather than drive
> >a used car, you can afford to buy your own health care plan first, and
> >put the luxuries on the back burner.
>
> But you can't generalize like that. Everyone's personal/financial/
> employment/family situation is different.
Yes, but ultimately it's irrelevant. I don't necessarily believe in a
nanny state. I can get behind SOME involvement of governemnt in health
care, but the wide sweeping trillion $+ ideas of obamam are way over the
top
Personally, my approach would be tort reform + tax credits toward
getting your own plan. I think that would work fine
>
> >>
> >> As I said before, you will always be able to point to individual
> >> cases and say "how dreadful", but *in general* it's good.
> >
> >I keep hearing horror tales about lines around the block to be accepted
> >by new doctrors or dentists. Are they mostly fiction?
>
> I've heard some of the things that your media is saying about the
> NHS and they are nonsense, or out of date.
>
> For the vast majority of people, the NHS provides a very
> good service.
>
> >Did you have a good vacation?
>
> Yes, it was lovely, thanks. We went to France and then we
> went to the countryside back here for a while (near Cambridge).
>
> -
Oh how nice! Must have been gorgeous
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 23, 4:59 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
>
> > Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> > the topic I saw a few days ago.
>
> Source?
I appreciate the fact that you think i have a photographic memory, and
can memorize the name of every talking head on CNN that i see over the
course of a week, but sadly my memory is not that good.
>
> > They admitted that decisions on extreme
> > care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance companies.
> > (Which can decide on whether or to what extent they will provide health
> > BENEFITS to seriously ill people.)
>
> The argument was that the public option would introduce
> death panels, specifically that because the public option
> was in place, a group would be set up to decide
> whether Sarah Palin's boy with Down's syndrome
> was "sufficiently productive" to live.
>
> That argument is bogus.
If someone who is carrying a downs syndrome child can look forward to
expensive medical procedures once the child is born, doesn't the
insurance company currently decide how far they will go in covering
those costs?
Or are insurance companies required by law to cover any and all medical
procedures for a downs child?
>
> >
> > So Palin is entirely correct, that SOME sort of panel or person will
> > ultimately have to decide, for instance, whether or not to give the
> > liver transplant to a 70 y/o alcoholic to preserve his life.
>
> She was talking about her boy, and she was talking about
> something *new* created by the public option.
She would be right, in that it would be "new" in the sense of a
goverment body now making those decisions.
>
> > So, whether it's the insurance company or a government panel, SOMEONE
> > other than the doctor and patient will have to decide how heatl care is
> > to be rationed.
>
> She wasn't talking about the rationing concept in general;
> she was talking about specifically the public option and
> the death panels it would set up for her baby.
Being a politician, she was doing what politicians do: Taking a kernel
of truth, stretching it to the Nth degree, and using imflammatory
hyperbole to deceive people into embracing her position.
You liberals do that on a daily basis.
There is no differnce with politicians. Liberal, conservative--they're
all a pack of liars, distorting the truth to promote their agendas
>
> >
> > And since the liberal democrats in government do so darn well at
> > everything they do, then certainly we want a GOVERNMENT panel deciding
> > those decisions.
> >
> > Yes, she is using somewhat inflammatory language--but YOUR side is using
> > inflammatory language as well.
>
> She's telling lies.
...like liberals do
>
> ...
> >
> > > That is what bothers me about American Republicans,
> > > and it goes far and beyond their general philosophy
> > > of government-is-evil-and-we've-got-ours-and-forget-
> > > about-anyone-else. It is the appeal to ignorance.
> >
> > What an elitist attitude!
>
> Thank you very much, and may I now and forever be elitist.
>
> > Anyone who disagrees with the liberals is
> > "deluded", "manipulated", "uninformed", and every other bad word, right?
>
> No. People who tell things that are untrue hoping that the audience
> doesn't check it is appealing to ignorance.
>
> Whether it's Palin and Grassley making stuff up about
> the public option or Seldon saying incorrect things about Judaism
> to an audience of Pentecostalists who he knows
> won't bother to check. It's putting a stumbling block
> before the blind and it's a serious Biblical sin.
it's a far worse sin to reject Christ, so deal with that before you cast
stones
>
> >
> > God forbid that anyone disagree with a program touted by the democratic
> > party, right?
>
> You can disagree all you want but don't tell lies about it.
Tell Pelosi that then! She can disagree about waterboarding, but she
should not LIE about her own knowledge, and apparently tacit approval of
it since she did not publicly denounce it at the time!
". . . we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or
any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What
they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel . . .
opinions that they could be used, but not that they would."
THAT'S...A...LIE.
>
> >
> > > Just wave a few red flag words in front of the crowds,
> > > and tell lies, realizing that most of the ignorant are
> > > going to just stand up and cheer them and jeer the
> > > enemy and not bother to look anything up.
> >
> > > So Palin talked about the health care bill's "death panels";
> >
> > which exist NOW and will under Obama
>
> She's talking about things allegedly introduced by the new bill.
>
> >
> > > Senator Grassley warned we should be "frightened",
> > > and that the government was supporting
> > > euthanasia and would "kill grandma",
> >
> > Since the elderly tend to vote conservative on issues, would it not be
> > in the democrats' self-interest to focus on aiding the younger people,
> > and cutting back on extraordiary care for the elderly?
>
> Scaring old people by telling them that the bill
> supports euthanasia when it doesn't is extraordinarily
> evil.
Interesting, then, that they took out the END OF LIFE counseling
provisions.
I thought many/most liberals approve of euthanasia anyway. Don't they?
It violates both the sections of the Bible
> forbidding you to lie and the sections of the Bible
> forbidding you from being a Republican.
Then i guess pelosi is damned too, huh?
>
> >
> > other liars
> >
> > > mentioned that the bill would pay for abortions
> >
> > It ABSOLUTELY WOULD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this was admitted in the
> > discussion.
>
> No it wasn't. You are 200000% wrong.
>
> Here are the President's own words, from yesterday's address:
> "Let�s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get
> health insurance under reform. That�s not true. Illegal immigrants
> would not be covered.
That's both true and untrue. I already showed how it WOULD cover
illegals in some instances.
That idea has never even been on the table. Some
> are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under
> reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax
> dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.
That's both true and untrue. I already showed how it WOULD cover
abortion in some instances.
And as every
> credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-
> called "death panels" � an offensive notion to me and to the American
> people. These are phony claims meant to divide us."
That's your best argument
>
> >
> > SOME health plans do provide for contraception and abortion options, and
> > if the government funds the healthcare costs of someone who choses one
> > of THOSE programs, then by extension tax payer dollars WOULD go toward
> > abortion if the plan member elects to have one.
> >
> > Why do you ignore that FACT?
>
> Because it's not introduced by the public plan.
yes it is. Unless you are saying the plan forbids one from choosing a
plan that offers abortion, then goverment WILL be funding abortion on
demand in at least SOME cases.
>
> >
> > That too hard for you to understand?
> >
>
> The debate was about the public option. We're not
> talking about anything already in the system, which
> would be there whether the feature is included in the
> bill or not. We are talking about reasons given
> for voting against the option. Anything that doesn't
> change from the option shouldn't be a reason
> to scare people into voting it down.
>
> ...
>
> > I thought you DO support spending tax payer dollars on illegal aliens'
> > education and health care. Don't you?
>
> I happen to support the Bible, and so I do. That doesn't mean
> that it is correct to lie and say that the public option puts
> this coverage in when it actually doesn't.
>
> >
> > Obama's plan does not specifically cover illegal aliens' health
> > care...UNLESS they are married to a citizen, and then tax payers WOULD
> > fund the illegal if the citizen obtained a family health care plan that
> > covers the spouse
>
> If they're married to a citizen, they are not aliens any more so
> the argument doesn't make sense.
You really don't know the law. If an illegal mexican came across the
border today with her three kids and married me, she and her kids would
still be illegal mexicans until they applied for and got citizenship.
And if it so happened that I had a goverment funded family insurance
plan, she and her kids would be covered, and tax dollars would thus be
paying for the health care of illegal aliens.
Now I'll be honest to say I don't think you'd have a vast number of
examples like this, but they could and would exist in some cases, and to
LIE and say tax dollars COULD NOT be used to cover illegal aliens simply
is not true because there are loopholes that would allow it.
>
> I don't know why you're asking these questions. If you're a
> Christian,
> you're obviously going to vote for the President's plan anyhow,
> since it's CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE. You don't want to find
> yourself in the deepest levels of hell when you die, right, so
> aren't you supporting the plan????
You're not even to first base yet, so you're the last person qualified
to teach christian theology
vince garcia
Those are fair points. But should we thus have to add a trillion + to
the current trillion $ deficit because we have OTHER taxes we don't
like, but are charged with?
Rob Strom
>
> > But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
> > can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
>
> You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
> good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED.
Constitutional doesn't mean MANDATED; it means ALLOWED.
("Unconstitutional" means FORBIDDEN.)
And education and health care are both constitutional; they
fall under the "general welfare" provisions of Article I that
authorizes Congress to tax and spend.
> As i pointed out and
> must reiterate, the idea of socialized medicine is modern. From 1776 to
> the 20th century, the notion of the government's providing socialized
> medicine to the people really didn't exist.
>
> This is the heart of the problems and issue with liberals and the way
> they look at the constitution. WE go by what the founding fathers
> intended.
So do we. The founding fathers intended that the
Congress had the power to either pass such a measure, or not.
...
>
> > Why not? What's the point of educating the population if you
> > can't keep them healthy.
>
> I have explained this already. Want another reason? Adding another
> trillion or two to the deficit is a bad idea.
It is cost-neutral in the long run, and besides it does a public
good in reducing costs, so it is more worth a trillion dollars
than the Bush war was that you conservatives not only
applauded but told opponents to shut up about for the
good of the country.
...
>
> I can't figure out, then, why I can't seem to find too many liberals
> who, if they had a magic wand, would swap the current system straight
> over for the english.
Inertia. Obama thought it would be too revolutionary to have
even single-payer, much less an NHS because too many
things would have to change at once.
It's like changing the DH rule in baseball versus switching to
cricket.
...
>
> Oh really!
>
> I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
> minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
Not that I approve of what the MoJ did, but you have just
overturned the whole story of Simeon and Levi from the Bible in the
above.
...
> > So obviously, our system is flawed too, but the American system
> > is far too harsh.
>
> It's not remotely tough enough. The problem is with the VIOLENT
> offenders. They should simply be executed for the good of society. As it
> is, they do their time and get out, being made better, more violent
> criminals than they went in as. Extenending MORE benefits, programs, and
> tolerance toward violent thugs will not turn them into the sensitive new
> age guys
Perhaps they should go one step further and execute Republicans
and rednecks as a kind of preventative measure :)
...
>
> Personally, my approach would be tort reform + tax credits toward
> getting your own plan. I think that would work fine
As you know, tort reform deals with only a small percentage of the
total costs,
and doesn't bring down premiums or extend coverage or prevent
the monopolistic abuses of the current system. You're just
echoing sodomite talking points.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 4:59 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> > > the topic I saw a few days ago.
>
> > Source?
>
> I appreciate the fact that you think i have a photographic memory, and
> can memorize the name of every talking head on CNN that i see over the
> course of a week, but sadly my memory is not that good.
Your personal recollection of something said orally doesn't count,
because
your problem is not lack of photographic memory but lack of correct
interpretation of what you hear. That's why most references are to
written documents. In the past you said you heard something and
I would check and what you thought you heard didn't match what was
said.
...
>
> > That argument is bogus.
>
> If someone who is carrying a downs syndrome child can look forward to
> expensive medical procedures once the child is born, doesn't the
> insurance company currently decide how far they will go in covering
> those costs?
Yes. That doesn't mean that the new legislation INTRODUCES a "death
panel".
It means that every insurance plan has a limitation in coverage.
Palin
was specifically talking about a problem with the NEW plan that
it would set up special panels where Palin would have to argue her
case.
> ...
>
> > She was talking about her boy, and she was talking about
> > something *new* created by the public option.
>
> She would be right, in that it would be "new" in the sense of a
> goverment body now making those decisions.
>
So Palin is lying. Her statement implies that what changes is the
kind of decisions being made, and your "justification" just says
that Joe from the Government rather than Anonymous from
Aetna makes the decision. Remember her statement implies
don't choose the public option because it will hurt Trix
(or whatever her kid's name is) and lots of people like him,
not don't choose the public option because the identity
of the faceless bureaucrat will change.
...
>
> Being a politician, she was doing what politicians do: Taking a kernel
> of truth, stretching it to the Nth degree, and using imflammatory
> hyperbole to deceive people into embracing her position.
In short, she is setting a stumbling block before the blind, and will
(if Christianity is true) spend eternity squatting in boiling
excrement.
Or sulfur, depending on your precise theological interpretation.
>
> You liberals do that on a daily basis.
No. Give me an example of a comparably
outrageous lie from Howard Dean on this issue.
...
>
> > Whether it's Palin and Grassley making stuff up about
> > the public option or Seldon saying incorrect things about Judaism
> > to an audience of Pentecostalists who he knows
> > won't bother to check. It's putting a stumbling block
> > before the blind and it's a serious Biblical sin.
>
> it's a far worse sin to reject Christ, so deal with that before you cast
> stones
>
No. The Bible says not a word about being wrong about who
the Messiah is (especially if he hasn't come yet), but it says plenty
about
bearing false witness and putting stumbling blocks before the blind
and neglecting the sick and hoarding one's wealth as if it was
all yours instead of shared with God.
Conservative Christians are arrogant, thinking that because they're
"right"
about some insignificant fact that they can't even prove, that this
trumps every
disgusting, hateful, immoral thing they do, and that they're immune
to criticism about these things.
Why don't you just forget about "rejecting Christ" and get back
to telling your buddies not to make up outrageous lies to attack
their enemies with and serve the insurance companies over the people?
>
> ...
>
> > You can disagree all you want but don't tell lies about it.
>
> Tell Pelosi that then! She can disagree about waterboarding, but she
> should not LIE about her own knowledge, and apparently tacit approval of
> it since she did not publicly denounce it at the time!
>
Republicans made a big stink about that, and it turned out that
the CIA was lying not Pelosi.
...
> > Scaring old people by telling them that the bill
> > supports euthanasia when it doesn't is extraordinarily
> > evil.
>
> Interesting, then, that they took out the END OF LIFE counseling
> provisions.
That was too bad. End of life counseling is a good thing. Doesn't
force anything, just to let you know that you get this or that
service from a hospice. Wish we had that during my
father-in-law's last illness. Nothing's forced.
The provisions were taken out because there was so much
distortion from Republicans that Democrats would have wasted
too much time explaining why these weren't death panels rather
than getting on with passing the bill.
I wouldn't gloat.
>
> I thought many/most liberals approve of euthanasia anyway. Don't they?
>
> It violates both the sections of the Bible
I don't approve of euthanasia.
>
> > forbidding you to lie and the sections of the Bible
> > forbidding you from being a Republican.
>
> Then i guess pelosi is damned too, huh?
She has her faults, but she's not a Republican, no.
> ...
>
> > Here are the President's own words, from yesterday's address:
> > "Let’s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get
> > health insurance under reform. That’s not true. Illegal immigrants
> > would not be covered.
>
> That's both true and untrue. I already showed how it WOULD cover
> illegals in some instances.
It wouldn't change anything. Once again people are screaming
"stop this bill because it will do X", and when you get to the truth
it means it will do Y not X, and Y is something that happens
with or without the bill.
...
>
> > Because it's not introduced by the public plan.
>
> yes it is. Unless you are saying the plan forbids one from choosing a
> plan that offers abortion, then goverment WILL be funding abortion on
> demand in at least SOME cases.
Abortion, not "abortion on demand", and it's not a change unless
the private plans all forbid it, which they don't.
...
>
> > > I thought you DO support spending tax payer dollars on illegal aliens'
> > > education and health care. Don't you?
>
> > I happen to support the Bible, and so I do. That doesn't mean
> > that it is correct to lie and say that the public option puts
> > this coverage in when it actually doesn't.
That's my position and it should be yours too.
I hope for the sake of your eternal soul that you repent
and call your representatives.
...
>
> You really don't know the law. If an illegal mexican came across the
> border today with her three kids and married me, she and her kids would
> still be illegal mexicans until they applied for and got citizenship.
But I think they'd get it automatically, which means they'd have
access to all these things.
...
>
> > I don't know why you're asking these questions. If you're a
> > Christian,
> > you're obviously going to vote for the President's plan anyhow,
> > since it's CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE. You don't want to find
> > yourself in the deepest levels of hell when you die, right, so
> > aren't you supporting the plan????
>
> You're not even to first base yet, so you're the last person qualified
> to teach christian theology
I have, as I've told you before, studied Christian theology from
eminent professors at one of the best
institutes of higher learning in the country.
I am not a Christian, but I know what the major branches
of Christianity (not yours) teach.
Over the years, the more exotic branches like yours have become
prominent, but that doesn't make what they believe in "Christian
theology".
It was a shocking experience back then learning that people could
re-interpret the Bible like that, but there it is!
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 25, 8:34 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 23, 4:59 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> > > > the topic I saw a few days ago.
> >
> > > Source?
> >
> > I appreciate the fact that you think i have a photographic memory, and
> > can memorize the name of every talking head on CNN that i see over the
> > course of a week, but sadly my memory is not that good.
>
> Your personal recollection of something said orally doesn't count,
> because
> your problem is not lack of photographic memory but lack of correct
> interpretation of what you hear. That's why most references are to
> written documents. In the past you said you heard something and
> I would check and what you thought you heard didn't match what was
> said.
As compared to you, who never misrepresents anything he hears?
If you would like to refute my point that "They admitted that decisions
on extreme care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance
companies" do so right here and now or shut up.
>
> ...
> >
> > > That argument is bogus.
> >
> > If someone who is carrying a downs syndrome child can look forward to
> > expensive medical procedures once the child is born, doesn't the
> > insurance company currently decide how far they will go in covering
> > those costs?
>
> Yes. That doesn't mean that the new legislation INTRODUCES a "death
> panel".
In the strctiest sense of the term, yes it does, since it takes the same
"death panel" decision-making process from a group of insurers, to a
group of liberal appointees.
The effect is the same. Palin is technically right.
> It means that every insurance plan has a limitation in coverage.
> Palin
> was specifically talking about a problem with the NEW plan that
> it would set up special panels where Palin would have to argue her
> case.
Questions:
1. Are you denying that some sort of panel would be set up that would
make an ultimate decision on whether to approve or disapprove extreme
and expensive health care treatment in individual cases? (I gave an
example of a 70 y/o alcoholic needing a liver transplant.)
2. If the answer is YES, you deny such a panel would be set up, then who
will be making the decision on whether government funds would cover the
man's liver transplant? Are any and all options for medical procedures
rubber stamped at the will of the patient and/or dr.?
If the answer is NO, there would be SOME sort of panel to decide cases
like that, Palin is technically right, this WOULD set up a "new"
GOVERNMENT panel to make these decisions.
3. If such a panel will exist, will the PATIENT be able to appear before
it, and make his case? If the answer is YES, Palin is again technically
right.
Or if the patient would be forbidden to personally appear before or
write an appeal to such a board, then Palin is wrong.
>
> > ...
> >
> > > She was talking about her boy, and she was talking about
> > > something *new* created by the public option.
> >
> > She would be right, in that it would be "new" in the sense of a
> > goverment body now making those decisions.
> >
>
> So Palin is lying.
As your fellow democrats do every time they open their mouths.
No difference. Your side are just as big a group of liars.
Her statement implies that what changes is the
> kind of decisions being made, and your "justification" just says
> that Joe from the Government rather than Anonymous from
> Aetna makes the decision. Remember her statement implies
> don't choose the public option because it will hurt Trix
> (or whatever her kid's name is) and lots of people like him,
> not don't choose the public option because the identity
> of the faceless bureaucrat will change.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Being a politician, she was doing what politicians do: Taking a kernel
> > of truth, stretching it to the Nth degree, and using imflammatory
> > hyperbole to deceive people into embracing her position.
>
> In short, she is setting a stumbling block before the blind, and will
> (if Christianity is true) spend eternity squatting in boiling
> excrement.
> Or sulfur, depending on your precise theological interpretation.
As will someone like Pelosi who lies about water boarding, and supports
the death of the unborn on demand
>
> >
> > You liberals do that on a daily basis.
>
> No. Give me an example of a comparably
> outrageous lie from Howard Dean on this issue.
I'm not going to argue comparables, and dean is only one liar among a
legion of liars, as is bohner, pelosi, palin, and so on. The point about
all politicians doing this sort of "lie" stands.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > > Whether it's Palin and Grassley making stuff up about
> > > the public option or Seldon saying incorrect things about Judaism
> > > to an audience of Pentecostalists who he knows
> > > won't bother to check. It's putting a stumbling block
> > > before the blind and it's a serious Biblical sin.
> >
> > it's a far worse sin to reject Christ, so deal with that before you cast
> > stones
> >
>
> No. The Bible says not a word about being wrong about who
> the Messiah is (especially if he hasn't come yet), but it says plenty
> about
> bearing false witness and putting stumbling blocks before the blind
> and neglecting the sick and hoarding one's wealth as if it was
> all yours instead of shared with God.
>
> Conservative Christians are arrogant, thinking that because they're
> "right"
> about some insignificant fact that they can't even prove, that this
> trumps every
> disgusting, hateful, immoral thing they do, and that they're immune
> to criticism about these things.
>
> Why don't you just forget about "rejecting Christ" and get back
> to telling your buddies not to make up outrageous lies to attack
> their enemies with and serve the insurance companies over the people?
Why don't you tell YOUR buddies to stop fighting for abortion on demand,
and protecting the ambulance chasers?
>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > You can disagree all you want but don't tell lies about it.
> >
> > Tell Pelosi that then! She can disagree about waterboarding, but she
> > should not LIE about her own knowledge, and apparently tacit approval of
> > it since she did not publicly denounce it at the time!
> >
>
> Republicans made a big stink about that, and it turned out that
> the CIA was lying not Pelosi.
Prove that statement. Then explain why obama appointee leon panetta
indicates she is a liar when YOU say it is the CIA who lied:
"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.
That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated
previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous
records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed
truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing �the
enhanced techniques that had been employed.� Ultimately, it is up to
Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions
about what happened."
Is panetta a liar? The answer is yes or no.
>
> ...
> > > Scaring old people by telling them that the bill
> > > supports euthanasia when it doesn't is extraordinarily
> > > evil.
> >
> > Interesting, then, that they took out the END OF LIFE counseling
> > provisions.
>
> That was too bad. End of life counseling is a good thing. Doesn't
> force anything, just to let you know that you get this or that
> service from a hospice. Wish we had that during my
> father-in-law's last illness. Nothing's forced.
>
> The provisions were taken out because there was so much
> distortion from Republicans that Democrats would have wasted
> too much time explaining why these weren't death panels rather
> than getting on with passing the bill.
>
> I wouldn't gloat.
>
> >
> > I thought many/most liberals approve of euthanasia anyway. Don't they?
> >
> > It violates both the sections of the Bible
>
> I don't approve of euthanasia.
As one knowledgeable on what liberals think, what proportion of them do
you speculate support euthanasia? 1 in 10? 5 in 10? what?
>
> >
> > > forbidding you to lie and the sections of the Bible
> > > forbidding you from being a Republican.
> >
> > Then i guess pelosi is damned too, huh?
>
> She has her faults, but she's not a Republican, no.
She's still a liar, so she's still damned
>
> > ...
> >
> > > Here are the President's own words, from yesterday's address:
> > > "Let�s start with the false claim that illegal immigrants will get
> > > health insurance under reform. That�s not true. Illegal immigrants
> > > would not be covered.
> >
> > That's both true and untrue. I already showed how it WOULD cover
> > illegals in some instances.
>
> It wouldn't change anything.
And that is one of its many problems!
Once again people are screaming
> "stop this bill because it will do X", and when you get to the truth
> it means it will do Y not X, and Y is something that happens
> with or without the bill.
I didn't say that; i said it is technically correct that tax dollars
could go to the health care of illegal aliens. And I notice you cut the
point i made about there not being too many cases of this happening. You
are obviously trying to slant and distort what i said as if i am trying
to claim wholesale funding of illegal alien health care swhen i am not.
>
> ...
> >
> > > Because it's not introduced by the public plan.
> >
> > yes it is. Unless you are saying the plan forbids one from choosing a
> > plan that offers abortion, then goverment WILL be funding abortion on
> > demand in at least SOME cases.
>
> Abortion, not "abortion on demand",
Some plans allow abortion on demand. Sheesh! And thus, in some cases
taxes would fund some abortion ON DEMAND
and it's not a change unless
> the private plans all forbid it, which they don't.
You keep invoking the word "change". "Change" is irrelevant. What is
relevant is what the bill will or will not do with tax dollars
>
> ...
> >
> > > > I thought you DO support spending tax payer dollars on illegal aliens'
> > > > education and health care. Don't you?
> >
> > > I happen to support the Bible, and so I do. That doesn't mean
> > > that it is correct to lie and say that the public option puts
> > > this coverage in when it actually doesn't.
>
> That's my position and it should be yours too.
> I hope for the sake of your eternal soul that you repent
> and call your representatives.
> ...
> >
> > You really don't know the law. If an illegal mexican came across the
> > border today with her three kids and married me, she and her kids would
> > still be illegal mexicans until they applied for and got citizenship.
>
> But I think they'd get it automatically, which means they'd have
> access to all these things.
well, you're wrong; it's not automatic. There is a process
>
> ...
> >
> > > I don't know why you're asking these questions. If you're a
> > > Christian,
> > > you're obviously going to vote for the President's plan anyhow,
> > > since it's CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE.
Then you should oppose it as a separation of church and state basis, or
else you're a hypocrite
You don't want to find
> > > yourself in the deepest levels of hell when you die, right, so
> > > aren't you supporting the plan????
> >
> > You're not even to first base yet, so you're the last person qualified
> > to teach christian theology
>
> I have, as I've told you before, studied Christian theology from
> eminent professors at one of the best
> institutes of higher learning in the country.
And, as I've told you before, you seem to understand virtually nothing
about christianity and the new testament.
Every time you open your mouth to say paul contradicts Jesus, you prove
that
> I am not a Christian, but I know what the major branches
> of Christianity (not yours) teach.
>
> Over the years, the more exotic branches like yours have become
> prominent, but that doesn't make what they believe in "Christian
> theology".
> It was a shocking experience back then learning that people could
> re-interpret the Bible like that, but there it is!
Look who's talking, you Reform! :)
>
> --
> Rob Strom
vince garcia
Apparently your "personal recollection of something said orally doesn't
count, because your problem is ... lack of correct interpretation of
what you hear"
I have repeatedly denounced bush and iraq, and you just bore false
witness against me by suggesting I was a blind bush supporter.
You're a liar, and just proved it with that
Emma
Rob Strom says...
My goodness, it all sounds hopeless.
It's the complete opposite to here, because a
politician who comes out *against* a national health
service (and that is extremely rare) is immediately criticized
by the leaders of the various parties.
The public want to be reassured that the NHS is
*safe* with all the political parties, so the parties go out
of their way to express support for it.
Gosh, I had no idea it was like that.
So you still have a fairly conservative government,
despite the Democratic majority?
How frustrating. It sounds like a sort of bullying.
>When one side is willing to play dirty and
>the other side wants to give the impression
>of reasonableness and bipartisanship,
>the good guys have a good chance of losing.
>
>I may have to move to the UK after all.
Are you disappointed in your new President so soon?
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Emma
>
>Emma wrote:
>>
>>
>> But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
>> can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
>
>You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
>good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED. As i pointed out and
>must reiterate, the idea of socialized medicine is modern. From 1776 to
>the 20th century, the notion of the government's providing socialized
>medicine to the people really didn't exist.
I know, but all sorts of things didn't exist, such as
welfare and child labour laws. We move on, and things
get better.
>This is the heart of the problems and issue with liberals and the way
>they look at the constitution. WE go by what the founding fathers
>intended. A liberal goes by what he thinks is a good idea, so he thinks
>something like gay marriage is constitutional.
The founding fathers didn't live in an age of modern medicine
though. They had no concept of the modern age.
>
>I can't figure out, then, why I can't seem to find too many liberals
>who, if they had a magic wand, would swap the current system straight
>over for the english.
>
>I think that's telling.
Not really, because they have no real experience of our
system.
But consider this: we have had an NHS for about 60 years,
and it would be political suicide for a politician to
state that he/she is against it. The public would never
vote for a party that wants to dismantle it.
Don't you think that is very telling?
>> I agree with you about the Islamic terrorist. It made me
>> angry too.
>> It seems there was some deal to do with oil! Evil!
>> Nothing to do with compassion.
>
>Oh really!
>
>I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
>minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
>
>...too bad you guys have such strict gun laws.
>
It seems the Scottish minister was just a puppet in all this. He was
doing to bidding of Downing Street.
>>
>> Although we do have a law that says that someone who is
>> dying can be released from prison.
>> But, that doesn't mean that they *must* be released. And he
>> **should not** have been released. Never. He should have died
>> in jail.
>
>That don't sound too compassionate of you :)
>
I'm not compassionate towards mass murderers, no.
We don't have a death penalty here (I'm against the death
penalty) so life imprisonment should mean "life".
His crime was so heinous that he should never have been
released.
I would support the compassionate release of, say, petty
criminals with terminal cancer. That's different. But not
murderers.
>>
>> Well Americans do have a different attitude towards
>> prisons, punishment, sickness, and so on. (I'm talking
>> in general, and not about terrorists, btw)
>>
>> Many Americans seem to have sort of Victorian attitudes to this
>> compared to Western Europe eg. You still execute people,
>
>...which is biblical, and which is the most effective means of
>protecting society from repeat offenders
>
>Had John Wayne Gacy, a democratic activist who worked for his local
>democratic party offices, been executed the first time he was jailed for
>molestation, over 30 kids would be alive today.
>
>But some liberal judge decided some modest jail time would be more
>appropriate for him, and he was released after 18 mos.
I don't think capital punishment is a deterrent.
I do believe in locking people up for life though, and
we don't do that here. We release them after about a
decade.
> and you chain up
>> prisoners, your sentencing is tougher, your jails are tougher.
>>
>> We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
>> Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
>> don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
>> from another country was eligible for a large house and free
>> car at taxpayers expense!
>
>That is the ultimate fruit of a liberal, tolerant society, huh?
>
>What you have is what WE would have if the liberals got to enact their
>good ideas without the conservatives being there to stop them.
We do have a very liberal government, yes, and I'm
a Conservative because I want to see tougher sentencing
and tougher border controls, etc.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Terry Cross
Mr. Garcia, before we approach your question of the deficit, please
tell me to whom is owed the "national debt?"
TCross
Rob Strom
> Rob Strom wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 8:05 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Emma wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > > But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
> > > > can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
>
> > > You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
> > > good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED.
>
> > Constitutional doesn't mean MANDATED; it means ALLOWED.
> > ("Unconstitutional" means FORBIDDEN.)
>
> > And education and health care are both constitutional; they
> > fall under the "general welfare" provisions of Article I that
> > authorizes Congress to tax and spend.
So I'm right about the founding fathers authorizing this sort of
thing,
and you are wrong that it is unauthorized.
...
>
> > It is cost-neutral in the long run, and besides it does a public
> > good in reducing costs, so it is more worth a trillion dollars
> > than the Bush war was that you conservatives not only
> > applauded but told opponents to shut up about for the
> > good of the country.
>
> Apparently your "personal recollection of something said orally doesn't
> count, because your problem is ... lack of correct interpretation of
> what you hear"
>
> I have repeatedly denounced bush and iraq, and you just bore false
> witness against me by suggesting I was a blind bush supporter.
I said "you conseratives", not you personally. The conservatives
did applaud Bush and his war and called liberals traitors and
worse for protesting.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
Coverage for life-saving procedures is right now, today, evaluated by
a committee when the expense approaches the coverage limit. And
people die when regularly when the numbers do not match.
Of COURSE this practice will continue on any government plan. The
committees will probably be decentralized, and most of the time when
the numbers are too far apart, the question will not be brought to the
committee.
Many new procedures are forbiddingly expensive. The poor will be
given the procedure only while it is experimental and risky. Then it
will become the exclusive option of the rich, until it becomes
abundant and cheap enough to be available to all. And those who
cannot afford the expensive procedures/medicines will simply die -- as
died so many in times past.
Government insurance will not change that. Terri Schiavo's death was
not contingent upon the scarcity of resources for care, but upon the
social doctrine that society may choose to kill at whim. Those who do
not believe in inflicting death upon the innocent objected
vigorously.
Unfortunately for Terri, the Nazi forces of America decided she was a
useless eater whose life was not worth living. That logical step and
legal precedent now standing in this country, in a few years, the
decision will become accepted and standard. No doubt Alzheimer's
victims will fall under the blade, too.
The liberal wing of American politics is hypocritical to deny the
program -- they have campaigned too many decades for its
implementation. But the right wing is also hypocritical to object to
the program -- for years they have effectively condoned death-by-
poverty, rewarding rich criminals (if not convicted) and punishing
poor honest people on the wholly fatuous premise that all rich people
are honest and all poor people are lazy.
TCross
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it
>>is
>>an evil.
> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits....
I don't understand what you mean by that. In what way do you mean "everyone
is equal?" If all you're saying is that all "equally" deserve health
benefits, that begs the question, Why should those who do not work for their
benefits deserve their benefits? (I'm of course talking about those who
*can* work, but choose to be idle, or live at the expense of others.
> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it?...
Absolutely not! I know people who would gladly live at your expense or my
expense, if they can get away with it. At any place of employment there are
people who try to shove their own work onto somebody else. They don't
"deserve" equal benefits for slack working and lack of production.
> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
> don't have health care under your system?
I don't know anybody like that. Our system covers the poor. There are
perhaps 50 million people who do not have health insurance, but they
certainly have access to programs for the needy, if indeed they are needy.
People who have money or an education should make wise choices in order to
acquire health insurance benefits. If they don't, they once again fall into
the "slacker" category. If they risk all that they won't need health
insurance, and end up needing it, they are no different than a gambler who
risks all in Las Vegas. Should the government bail out gamblers too?
> Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
> otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
What I saw happen to my wife's niece was not so good. She had to wait, I
think, over a year to receive medical treatment for her gallstones, even as
she continued in nursing school. Rationed health care is not good, even if
you're used to it, and know nothing else.
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>>>The idea of guaranteeing health benefits for those who do not deserve it
>>>is
>>>an evil.
>
>> Everyone is equal and so everyone deserves health benefits....
>
>I don't understand what you mean by that. In what way do you mean "everyone
>is equal?"
> If all you're saying is that all "equally" deserve health
>benefits, that begs the question, Why should those who do not work for their
>benefits deserve their benefits? (I'm of course talking about those who
>*can* work, but choose to be idle, or live at the expense of others.
How do you make a judgment about who is deserving and who is
not? Who should make those decisions?
I think health care should be available to all regardless of
income, employment status, lifestyle etc. Then nobody is discriminated
against.
Did the good Samaritan ask the man on the road his employment status and
lifestyle choices before he bandaged his wounds?
There is something distinctly unchristian about your attitude.
>> Anything else is discrimination, isn't it?...
>
>Absolutely not! I know people who would gladly live at your expense or my
>expense, if they can get away with it. At any place of employment there are
>people who try to shove their own work onto somebody else. They don't
>"deserve" equal benefits for slack working and lack of production.
So you're saying that the tens of millions of people who
currently have no healthcare in the US are all slackers and
undeserving of healthcare? That's very judgmental and
insulting, isn't it?
>> In any case, what about all those who *do* deserve it and currently
>> don't have health care under your system?
>
>I don't know anybody like that. Our system covers the poor. There are
>perhaps 50 million people who do not have health insurance, but they
>certainly have access to programs for the needy, if indeed they are needy.
I wouldn't like to be without healthcare in the US. I've
already heard you and Vince condemn these people as slackers
and undeserving. There must be a terrible stigma attached to
their situation.
>> Of course there are problems with our system. Nobody says
>> otherwise. Nevertheless it's still a good service.
>
>What I saw happen to my wife's niece was not so good. She had to wait, I
>think, over a year to receive medical treatment for her gallstones, even as
>she continued in nursing school. Rationed health care is not good, even if
>you're used to it, and know nothing else.
The average wait for an operation on the NHS is 3 weeks.
The propaganda you're fed in the US is mostly out of date.
In any case, it's better to wait than not to be eligible
at all.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Emma
>
>
>The average wait for an operation on the NHS is 3 weeks.
>The propaganda you're fed in the US is mostly out of date.
>
Correction: that should be 8 weeks.
Waiting times are at an all time low...
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> > > > > the topic I saw a few days ago.
...
>
> If you would like to refute my point that "They admitted that decisions
> on extreme care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance
> companies" do so right here and now or shut up.
That wasn't your point. I said
" What [Palin] said is that under this bill, the government
would set up "death panels" to decide whether people
like her Down-syndrome son were productive enough
people to deserve to live or die. Of course that
is an outrageous lie."
You then said "not according to a panel of independents",
meaning "A panel of independents came to the
conclusion that Palin's statement was not a lie".
Saying that no insurance company, government or private,
is going to cover everything in the world is so
completely different from saying that the
public option will set up "death panels"
that equating the two is itself an outrageous lie.
> ...
>
> > Yes. That doesn't mean that the new legislation INTRODUCES a "death
> > panel".
>
> In the strctiest sense of the term, yes it does, since it takes the same
> "death panel" decision-making process from a group of insurers, to a
> group of liberal appointees.
Therefore it INTRODUCES nothing.
Saying that a bill preserves the status quo about something is
extraordinarily different from saying that a bill INTRODUCES something
frightening.
>
> The effect is the same. Palin is technically right.
She's technically wrong, and she's morally wrong,
and if there is a Christian afterlife,
she will be consumed by the eternal fire whose
worms never turn away!!!
...
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Are you denying that some sort of panel would be set up that would
> make an ultimate decision on whether to approve or disapprove extreme
> and expensive health care treatment in individual cases? (I gave an
> example of a 70 y/o alcoholic needing a liver transplant.)
All insurance will decide what to cover. Nothing different about
public plans.
>
> 2. If the answer is YES, you deny such a panel would be set up, then who
> will be making the decision on whether government funds would cover the
> man's liver transplant? Are any and all options for medical procedures
> rubber stamped at the will of the patient and/or dr.?
>
> If the answer is NO, there would be SOME sort of panel to decide cases
> like that, Palin is technically right, this WOULD set up a "new"
> GOVERNMENT panel to make these decisions.
No it would not be new, so Palin is technically wrong.
Palin would only be right if it were something new and dangerous
unique to this bill. Otherwise it is an egregious lie to suggest
that the something new and dangerous is the result of the bill,
and by implication a reason for rejecting the bill.
It's as if I said in 1968, thanks to Richard Nixon, people are
going to get drafted into the Army. When the reality was
that people were drafted into the Army before. It would not
be a defense of the lie to say, "yes but now it's different
because they would be getting draft letters saying
'Nixon' whereas before they got draft letters saying 'Johnson',
so this is a NEW system".
>
> 3. If such a panel will exist, will the PATIENT be able to appear before
> it, and make his case? If the answer is YES, Palin is again technically
> right.
>
> Or if the patient would be forbidden to personally appear before or
> write an appeal to such a board, then Palin is wrong.
Palin is wrong unless the public option creates a risk to patients
that didn't exist before.
And in fact, what happens is that under the public option
more people are covered, and their premiums go down.
...
>
> > So Palin is lying.
>
> As your fellow democrats do every time they open their mouths.
False.
>
> No difference. Your side are just as big a group of liars.
No. Not as frequently and not as outrageously.
I want to hear something as outrageous as you're
going to euthanize grandma because there's
a public option.
> > ... Remember her statement implies
> > don't choose the public option because it will hurt Trix
> > (or whatever her kid's name is) and lots of people like him,
> > not don't choose the public option because the identity
> > of the faceless bureaucrat will change.
Remember Palin's statement implies
don't choose the public option because it will
hurt Trix and lots of people like him, not don't choose
the public option because the identity of the
faceless bureaucrat will change.
...
> > In short, she is setting a stumbling block before the blind, and will
> > (if Christianity is true) spend eternity squatting in boiling
> > excrement.
> > Or sulfur, depending on your precise theological interpretation.
>
> As will someone like Pelosi who lies about water boarding, and supports
> the death of the unborn on demand
She didn't lie about waterboarding. Cheney and his
evil henchmen lied about waterboarding as did the
pundits of the right until one actually volunteered to
get waterboarded.
...
>
> > No. Give me an example of a comparably
> > outrageous lie from Howard Dean on this issue.
>
> I'm not going to argue comparables, and dean is only one liar among a
> legion of liars,
If he is, I want to hear an example of one of his lies.
> as is bohner, pelosi, palin, and so on. The point about
> all politicians doing this sort of "lie" stands.
They don't. Republicans have been just pulling stuff
out of their butts.
...
>
> > Why don't you just forget about "rejecting Christ" and get back
> > to telling your buddies not to make up outrageous lies to attack
> > their enemies with and serve the insurance companies over the people?
>
> Why don't you tell YOUR buddies to stop fighting for abortion on demand,
> and protecting the ambulance chasers?
Because I haven't seen liberals and liberal pundits going around these
last few
months writing editorials and making speeches about how we need more
abortion on demand.
The insurance companies are "ambulance chasers" in that they
keep demanding that you tell them about every time you went
to the hospital, so they can pull the plug on your insurance
if you went too many times or forgot to tell them about one of the
times.
...
> > Republicans made a big stink about that, and it turned out that
> > the CIA was lying not Pelosi.
>
> Prove that statement. Then explain why obama appointee leon panetta
> indicates she is a liar when YOU say it is the CIA who lied:
Panetta finally admitted the CIA was wrong.
>
> "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.
It wasn't their policy to mislead Congress. It just happened
that in this case, despite their policy, they did mislead Congress.
...
>
> Is panetta a liar? The answer is yes or no.
Yes. He lied and then checked up and retracted the lie.
...
>
> > > It violates both the sections of the Bible
>
> > I don't approve of euthanasia.
>
> As one knowledgeable on what liberals think, what proportion of them do
> you speculate support euthanasia? 1 in 10? 5 in 10? what?
Depends on the circumstance, and exactly how you define
euthanasia. In some cases, like someone is terminally
ill and in persistent pain, and a decision is made that
if he has a crisis, they won't intubate him or use
extraordinary means to revive him. If that is defined
as euthanasia, then a large percentage of
both liberals and conservatives support euthanasia
and in this sense it is mandated by many rabbinic rulings.
...
>
> > It wouldn't change anything.
>
> And that is one of its many problems!
No.
That's ridiculous. The health care bill is defective
because it doesn't solve the problem of illegal
immigration.
.
>
> I didn't say that; i said it is technically correct that tax dollars
> could go to the health care of illegal aliens.
It is not correct to say that this is a criticism of the bill.
And it's not "tax dollars", it's "premiums". Premiums
that otherwise would have been paid to a private program.
...
>
> You keep invoking the word "change". "Change" is irrelevant. What is
> relevant is what the bill will or will not do with tax dollars
No.
That is a disgusting subterfuge.
You are saying that these abuses will happen. And in defense
you're retreating to the position that actually no new abuses
will happen, and maybe even fewer abuses will happen --
what really bothers you is that people's money filtered
through the US rather than people's money filtered
through Aetna are doing the abuses.
So you're not opposed to being run over by a truck
as long as the driver works for a private company, yeah?
...
>
> Then you should oppose it as a separation of church and state basis, or
> else you're a hypocrite
It's not an establishment of religion, so no.
...
>
> And, as I've told you before, you seem to understand virtually nothing
> about christianity and the new testament.
>
> Every time you open your mouth to say paul contradicts Jesus, you prove
> that
>
No. I correct your misimpressions that he doesn't.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>I don't understand what you mean by that. In what way do you mean
>>"everyone
>>is equal?"
>> If all you're saying is that all "equally" deserve health
>>benefits, that begs the question, Why should those who do not work for
>>their
>>benefits deserve their benefits? (I'm of course talking about those who
>>*can* work, but choose to be idle, or live at the expense of others.
> How do you make a judgment about who is deserving and who is
> not? Who should make those decisions?
People themselves make those decisions when they have the capability to make
good decisions and decide one way or the other. Those who are incapable of
making good decisions are informed in many ways of their options to receive
help from the government. Or their caregivers are informed of their options.
As I've said we do have a Social Security system, and a Welfare system. We
do not leave people who are poor or helpless without any resources.
But we also believe government has no business taking over our lives, in
making decisions for us. And so, there will be people who ignore government
options, or who make bad decisions. There are people who gamble that they
won't need health insurance. In that case, when they fall into poverty there
is still a government program to pick them up. It's just that gamblers do
run the risk of losing everything they have. And that's as it should be.
Government should *not* be making people live their lives in a certain way.
In our country, government serves the people--not the other way around.
Sure, government can be a kind of arbiter, ensuring that the weak have
resources against the strong, and that nobody is left without any resources.
But government is not a "king" or "queen" to us, dictating to us what
choices we must make. We should be given the right to gamble, if we want,
even if it means we make bad choices, costing us nearly everything.
> I think health care should be available to all regardless of
> income, employment status, lifestyle etc. Then nobody is discriminated
> against.
The problem is not "discrimination." We have no discrimination in our Social
Security system. We "discriminate" in terms of who is eligible, in terms of
how needy they are, but that is not "discrimination." Neither should we
indiscriminately hand out money to people who freely gambled their fortunes
away, and now expect you and me to pick up the tab!
> Did the good Samaritan ask the man on the road his employment status and
> lifestyle choices before he bandaged his wounds?
> There is something distinctly unchristian about your attitude.
On the contrary, God let the man on the road get beat up, because he chose
to go down that road. Picking the man up was the charitable thing, and did
not override his free will to take chances with his own life. Government did
not make him go down that road, and government did not prevent him from
going down that road. Government is not "God." It is the servant of free
men, and can be compassionate towards those who make mistakes without
preventing them from making mistakes in the first place.
> So you're saying that the tens of millions of people who
> currently have no healthcare in the US are all slackers and
> undeserving of healthcare? That's very judgmental and
> insulting, isn't it?
No, that's part of making a free choice under our system. Sometimes that
means people are raised up in irresponsible homes, because government
refuses to take over the job of parenting children. If you want to give up
your children to the State, that is up to you. I'm sure they will make very
final civil servants, but they will no longer be free. They will receive
propaganda, and they will support anything that gives more money to the
system that supports them. They will no longer be loyal to you or to your
family, because they will have been sold to a system that denigrates their
free will.
>>What I saw happen to my wife's niece was not so good. She had to wait, I
>>think, over a year to receive medical treatment for her gallstones, even
>>as
>>she continued in nursing school. Rationed health care is not good, even if
>>you're used to it, and know nothing else.
> The average wait for an operation on the NHS is 3 weeks.
> The propaganda you're fed in the US is mostly out of date.
Baloney. I'm talking about my wife's niece. I read an e-mail from her TODAY.
I've known her for years. She waited for a long time, attending university
to be a nurse, all the while being denied immediate treatment for her
gallstones. I think I will reply to her e-mail, and present to her your own
misinformation? I will try to paste in her answer for you?
randy
randy
"Emma"
> Correction: that should be 8 weeks.
> Waiting times are at an all time low...
Oh yes, government statistics to bolster its own image as "defender of the
people." ;)
I'm e-mailing my niece who works for that very same National Health System
to see if everybody is a guarantee to be offered this 8 week treatment. But
I suspect just getting on this list is a matter of (you guessed
it)--*rationing!*
randy
vince garcia
everyone and the government itself, which orders stuff and services to
keep itself going
Terry Cross
An entity cannot owe money to itself, so the statement that the
government owes itself money cannot be correct.
The government does not own money to me, or to you, or to any private
companies that I know.
To whom is the money owed?
TCross
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>> Correction: that should be 8 weeks.
>> Waiting times are at an all time low...
>
>>http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/management/average-wait->nhs-treatment-falls-to-all-time-low/2007514.article
>
>Oh yes, government statistics to bolster its own image as "defender of the
>people." ;)
They aren't government statistics. The statistics are
provided by the hospitals themselves.
>I'm e-mailing my niece who works for that very same National Health System
>to see if everybody is a guarantee to be offered this 8 week treatment. But
>I suspect just getting on this list is a matter of (you guessed
>it)--*rationing!*
Getting on the waiting list is a matter of referral by
your doctor.
I didn't say that everyone is *guaranteed* an 8 week wait
for an operation. I said that is the average.
If I'd ask you to *guess* the average waiting time, I'm
sure you would have given me a ridiculous answer because
you have been fed so much rubbish and scaremongering
about a national health service in the US.
Also, remember that we have a *choice* here. We can have
private medicine or use the NHS. I have experience of
both, and I can tell you that I prefer the NHS because
they are concerned about *me* rather than their profits.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
vince garcia
it owes it to ME in my gvt retirement plan, for one
>
> TCross
vince garcia
>
> In article <4A93D3...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> >Emma wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
> >> can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
> >
> >You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
> >good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED. As i pointed out and
> >must reiterate, the idea of socialized medicine is modern. From 1776 to
> >the 20th century, the notion of the government's providing socialized
> >medicine to the people really didn't exist.
>
> I know, but all sorts of things didn't exist, such as
> welfare and child labour laws. We move on, and things
> get better.
FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
otherwise, "change" is not necessarily for the better.
We could have a group of liberal appointees look at SAT scores and
psychological profiles of our children, and the mandate they receive
traning in occupations THEY think they would do well in.
That would be "change"...it would be "for the benefit of society"...and
it would not be good.
But I can see liberal educators salivating at the thought of
manipulating society in ways like that
I think any "reform" we need to healthcare can be handled by tort reform
and some tax creditis, not trillion $ overhauls
>
> >This is the heart of the problems and issue with liberals and the way
> >they look at the constitution. WE go by what the founding fathers
> >intended. A liberal goes by what he thinks is a good idea, so he thinks
> >something like gay marriage is constitutional.
>
> The founding fathers didn't live in an age of modern medicine
> though. They had no concept of the modern age.
That is a non sequitur. Doctors existed in 1776...had someone stood up
and suggested the country should pay for everyone's doctor bills because
that should be a constitutional right, they'd have been laughed (or
lashed) out of philadelphia
>
> >
> >I can't figure out, then, why I can't seem to find too many liberals
> >who, if they had a magic wand, would swap the current system straight
> >over for the english.
> >
> >I think that's telling.
>
> Not really, because they have no real experience of our
> system.
>
> But consider this: we have had an NHS for about 60 years,
> and it would be political suicide for a politician to
> state that he/she is against it. The public would never
> vote for a party that wants to dismantle it.
>
> Don't you think that is very telling?
Perhaps. But FOX just interviewed a canadian lady who had brain cancer.
In canada, she was told it would be up to a 6 month wait to get surgery
for it under their system.
Not wanting to die under their health care limitations, she mortgaged
her house, flew to the US and paid cash to the Mayo Clinic to get the
operation done in only a few days.
Think I like our system better than canada's, and what problems there
are can be taken care of infinitely cheaper than obama's way
>
> >> I agree with you about the Islamic terrorist. It made me
> >> angry too.
> >> It seems there was some deal to do with oil! Evil!
> >> Nothing to do with compassion.
> >
> >Oh really!
> >
> >I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
> >minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
> >
> >...too bad you guys have such strict gun laws.
> >
>
> It seems the Scottish minister was just a puppet in all this. He was
> doing to bidding of Downing Street.
Hmm...well, to hell with the PM then.
But I'll say the guy sure SOUNDED like some liberal, feel-good nut
wanting to show New Age tolerance and compassion
I'm sure he'd be outraged at the thought of tight scrutiny on Islamic
mosques and schools in Scotland
>
> >>
> >> Although we do have a law that says that someone who is
> >> dying can be released from prison.
> >> But, that doesn't mean that they *must* be released. And he
> >> **should not** have been released. Never. He should have died
> >> in jail.
> >
> >That don't sound too compassionate of you :)
> >
>
> I'm not compassionate towards mass murderers, no.
>
> We don't have a death penalty here (I'm against the death
> penalty) so life imprisonment should mean "life".
> His crime was so heinous that he should never have been
> released.
>
> I would support the compassionate release of, say, petty
> criminals with terminal cancer. That's different. But not
> murderers.
should be obvious, huh?
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Well Americans do have a different attitude towards
> >> prisons, punishment, sickness, and so on. (I'm talking
> >> in general, and not about terrorists, btw)
> >>
> >> Many Americans seem to have sort of Victorian attitudes to this
> >> compared to Western Europe eg. You still execute people,
> >
> >...which is biblical, and which is the most effective means of
> >protecting society from repeat offenders
> >
> >Had John Wayne Gacy, a democratic activist who worked for his local
> >democratic party offices, been executed the first time he was jailed for
> >molestation, over 30 kids would be alive today.
> >
> >But some liberal judge decided some modest jail time would be more
> >appropriate for him, and he was released after 18 mos.
>
> I don't think capital punishment is a deterrent.
It would have saved 32 kids in gacy's case, for 100% sure.
> I do believe in locking people up for life though, and
> we don't do that here. We release them after about a
> decade.
Unfortunately, the liberals won't let us do that either. Out here,
they're forcing felons out early because there are so many criminals in
this liberal, tolerant state that the prisons are bursting at the seams
>
> > and you chain up
> >> prisoners, your sentencing is tougher, your jails are tougher.
> >>
> >> We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
> >> Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
> >> don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
> >> from another country was eligible for a large house and free
> >> car at taxpayers expense!
> >
> >That is the ultimate fruit of a liberal, tolerant society, huh?
> >
> >What you have is what WE would have if the liberals got to enact their
> >good ideas without the conservatives being there to stop them.
>
> We do have a very liberal government, yes, and I'm
> a Conservative because I want to see tougher sentencing
> and tougher border controls, etc.
Wait til the next election!
>
> --
> ..EMMA..
> http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
>
> FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
>
> otherwise, "change" is not necessarily for the better.
>
> We could have a group of liberal appointees look at SAT scores and
> psychological profiles of our children, and the mandate they receive
> traning in occupations THEY think they would do well in.
>
> That would be "change"...it would be "for the benefit of society"...and
> it would not be good.
>
> But I can see liberal educators salivating at the thought of
> manipulating society in ways like that
No they're not.
>
> I think any "reform" we need to healthcare can be handled by tort reform
> and some tax creditis, not trillion $ overhauls
>
You know that this is false, since I have already explained to you
that malpractise-related costs are only a small percentage of the
high costs.
You are repeating sodomite talking points.
Why are you aligning with Republican sodomites who are leading you
into the lowest levels of hell (if it exists)?
You should support Christian health care.
...
>
> That is a non sequitur. Doctors existed in 1776...had someone stood up
> and suggested the country should pay for everyone's doctor bills because
> that should be a constitutional right, they'd have been laughed (or
> lashed) out of philadelphia
You know perfectly well that the Obama plan is not for the country
paying for everyone's doctor bills. It's for *****insurance*****
(i.e. risk pooling). Caring for the sick is Biblical. Risk pooling
is also Biblical -- goes back to at least to Joseph who
saved a fraction of the crop of prosperous years to cover
the famine years.
...
>
> > Don't you think that is very telling?
>
> Perhaps. But FOX just interviewed a canadian lady who had brain cancer.
> In canada, she was told it would be up to a 6 month wait to get surgery
> for it under their system.
>
> Not wanting to die under their health care limitations, she mortgaged
> her house, flew to the US and paid cash to the Mayo Clinic to get the
> operation done in only a few days.
Leave it to fox to cherry pick the exceptional cases to make them
look like the typical cases. They're disgusting liars, and will
spend eternity in boiling excrement if Christianity is true.
>
> Think I like our system better than canada's, and what problems there
> are can be taken care of infinitely cheaper than obama's way
Obama's way will nearly pay for itself in the short term, and
will be definitely better in the long run.
> ...
>
> Unfortunately, the liberals won't let us do that either. Out here,
> they're forcing felons out early because there are so many criminals in
> this liberal, tolerant state that the prisons are bursting at the seams
Do you think that the red states have less crime?
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>Oh yes, government statistics to bolster its own image as "defender of the
>>people." ;)
> They aren't government statistics. The statistics are
> provided by the hospitals themselves.
And who runs the hospitals and wants to take credit for your health
care--the government! Nevertheless, I was just quoting from the link you
referred to. It said, "The average wait for treatment on the NHS is now just
8.6 weeks - the shortest since records began, according to new government
figures."
>>I'm e-mailing my niece who works for that very same National Health System
>>to see if everybody is a guarantee to be offered this 8 week treatment.
>>But
>>I suspect just getting on this list is a matter of (you guessed
>>it)--*rationing!*
> Getting on the waiting list is a matter of referral by
> your doctor.
And you think that has nothing to do with "rationing?" ;)
> I didn't say that everyone is *guaranteed* an 8 week wait
> for an operation. I said that is the average.
That is an average for those who get on the list for an operation to start
with. My niece was diagnosed and *not* put on a list. She was put on some
kind of "eventual list," and had to wait far longer than 8 weeks. She had to
wait over a year, I believe! But I'm checking on that now. I e-mailed her
yesterday, so I'll get back with you.
> If I'd ask you to *guess* the average waiting time, I'm
> sure you would have given me a ridiculous answer because
> you have been fed so much rubbish and scaremongering
> about a national health service in the US.
No, I'm talking about my niece and my mother-in-law. Both have had to suffer
through this "rationing" stuff. My mother-in-law just had knee-replacement
surgery, but I'm not sure how long she had to wait. My father-in-law died of
leukemia, and I'm not sure he got on any list at all. I'll have to get back
to you on that one also.
My concern is that whenever a public health system serves the entire
country, including those who contribute nothing, you have to ration your
resources. The young may have to suffer pain, because it is not critical to
have an immediate operation. The elderly may be considered "way down the
totem pole" in terms of priority, because they may not have long to live
regardless.
> Also, remember that we have a *choice* here. We can have
> private medicine or use the NHS. I have experience of
> both, and I can tell you that I prefer the NHS because
> they are concerned about *me* rather than their profits.
Right. Next you'll quote me how the World Health Organization ranks you. Why
don't we just apply labels and numbers to every individual so we can
organize the world in the best interests of those who lead us?
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>>>Oh yes, government statistics to bolster its own image as "defender of the
>>>people." ;)
>
>> They aren't government statistics. The statistics are
>> provided by the hospitals themselves.
>
>And who runs the hospitals and wants to take credit for your health
>care--the government! Nevertheless, I was just quoting from the link you
>referred to. It said, "The average wait for treatment on the NHS is now just
>8.6 weeks - the shortest since records began, according to new government
>figures."
The government collects the figures but they are provided
by the hospitals. And btw, even the opposition party agrees that
the figures are correct.
>>>I'm e-mailing my niece who works for that very same National Health System
>>>to see if everybody is a guarantee to be offered this 8 week treatment.
>>>But
>>>I suspect just getting on this list is a matter of (you guessed
>>>it)--*rationing!*
>
>> Getting on the waiting list is a matter of referral by
>> your doctor.
>
>And you think that has nothing to do with "rationing?" ;)
Have you evidence that GPs in the UK deny patients
a referral for an operation?
>> I didn't say that everyone is *guaranteed* an 8 week wait
>> for an operation. I said that is the average.
>
>That is an average for those who get on the list for an operation to start
>with. My niece was diagnosed and *not* put on a list. She was put on some
>kind of "eventual list," and had to wait far longer than 8 weeks. She had to
>wait over a year, I believe! But I'm checking on that now. I e-mailed her
>yesterday, so I'll get back with you.
You can't make assumptions about our health service based
on one person's experience! You don't even know her medical
details or even if she had to wait! Even if she did wait, there
could be medical reasons for that.
>> If I'd ask you to *guess* the average waiting time, I'm
>> sure you would have given me a ridiculous answer because
>> you have been fed so much rubbish and scaremongering
>> about a national health service in the US.
>
>No, I'm talking about my niece and my mother-in-law.
Two people?? Is that the extent of your survey??
Over 60 million people live here, Randy.
Every one of those 60 million is eligible for health care and the
vast majority take advantage of it.
>Both have had to suffer
>through this "rationing" stuff. My mother-in-law just had knee-replacement
>surgery, but I'm not sure how long she had to wait. My father-in-law died of
>leukemia, and I'm not sure he got on any list at all. I'll have to get back
>to you on that one also.
So you don't know anything about these cases either.
>My concern is that whenever a public health system serves the entire
>country, including those who contribute nothing, you have to ration your
>resources.
Whenever you *don't* have a public health system, you have
millions of people who go without health care, or who go
bankrupt trying to pay for it.
> The young may have to suffer pain, because it is not critical to
>have an immediate operation. The elderly may be considered "way down the
>totem pole" in terms of priority, because they may not have long to live
>regardless.
I have heard enough stories about the US to know
that Americans without health cover suffer far more.
>> Also, remember that we have a *choice* here. We can have
>> private medicine or use the NHS. I have experience of
>> both, and I can tell you that I prefer the NHS because
>> they are concerned about *me* rather than their profits.
>
>Right. Next you'll quote me how the World Health Organization ranks you. Why
>don't we just apply labels and numbers to every individual so we can
>organize the world in the best interests of those who lead us?
The fact is that the US should be way up the league in
terms of health care,but you are not.
And since you mentioned the World Health Organization: you came
37th in that, which is pretty poor.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>>> If all you're saying is that all "equally" deserve health
>>>benefits, that begs the question, Why should those who do not work for
>>>their
>>>benefits deserve their benefits? (I'm of course talking about those who
>>>*can* work, but choose to be idle, or live at the expense of others.
>
>> How do you make a judgment about who is deserving and who is
>> not? Who should make those decisions?
>
>People themselves make those decisions when they have the capability to make
>good decisions and decide one way or the other.
But we're talking about people who present themselves as needing
medical care but unable to pay. How do you decide who is
deserving of help and who is not? What are your criteria?
>>
>> I think health care should be available to all regardless of
>> income, employment status, lifestyle etc. Then nobody is discriminated
>> against.
>
>The problem is not "discrimination." We have no discrimination in our Social
>Security system.
> We "discriminate" in terms of who is eligible, in terms of
>how needy they are, but that is not "discrimination." Neither should we
>indiscriminately hand out money to people who freely gambled their fortunes
>away, and now expect you and me to pick up the tab!
But we were talking about health care, not welfare.
>> Did the good Samaritan ask the man on the road his employment status and
>> lifestyle choices before he bandaged his wounds?
>> There is something distinctly unchristian about your attitude.
>
>On the contrary, God let the man on the road get beat up, because he chose
>to go down that road.
I have no idea what point you're making with that sentence.
> Picking the man up was the charitable thing, and did
>not override his free will to take chances with his own life.
Which is what a national health service does too eg. regardless
of our choices and regardless of our misfortune, everyone receives
health care.
On the other hand, you were saying: If you meet with misfortune,
you shouldn't expect the rest of us to bail you out.
You are saying that the man should have taken out a health
care plan and should not have expected anyone else to cover
his costs. The good Samaritan, otoh, picked up the bill.
He knew nothing about the man, yet he still made sure he was
well looked after. Yet you don't agree with that sort of attitude.
>> So you're saying that the tens of millions of people who
>> currently have no healthcare in the US are all slackers and
>> undeserving of healthcare? That's very judgmental and
>> insulting, isn't it?
>
>No, that's part of making a free choice under our system.
I think it's judgmental and insulting, and there is enough
evidence out there to show that many decent people fall
through the net due to circumstances beyond their control.
>
>> The average wait for an operation on the NHS is 3 weeks.
>> The propaganda you're fed in the US is mostly out of date.
>
>Baloney. I'm talking about my wife's niece. I read an e-mail from her TODAY.
>I've known her for years. She waited for a long time, attending university
>to be a nurse, all the while being denied immediate treatment for her
>gallstones.
That's not what you said in the other post.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
...>
> My concern is that whenever a public health system serves the entire
> country, including those who contribute nothing, you have to ration your
> resources.
Any insurance plan has to ration resources, and often in very
counterproductive ways.
For example, as a diabetic, it is considered medically important
for me to have dental hygiene appointments every three months,
but my company-sponsored health care plan will only cover
them every six months. That's rationing.
My company-sponsored health care plan claimed to support
free "preventative care" not subject to a deductible or a co-pay.
But when my cardiologist ordered a routine stress test to
make sure that the arteries in my heart hadn't changed
and wouldn't require additional medication to prevent
future blockages, the insurance company refused to
cover it.
So please don't tell me that the decision not to cover
everything or to claim to cover something and then
renege on it is some new invention associated with
insurance plans run by the government.
In both cases a faceless bureaucrat is contradicting my doctor.
As a retiree, it's too late for me to start a new career with
a different employer in the hope that maybe the new one
will have a plan that covers 3-month dental cleanings or
that covers stress tests. Except for ideologues, there's
no difference whether the faceless bureaucrat calls himself
an Aetna bureaucrat or a public option bureaucrat.
Either way they're telling me to do without my
stress test, or go out on the street with a tin cup
and hope that somebody will be kind enough to
help pay for it.
--
Rob Strom
Emma
In article <4A9670...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
>> >
>> >You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
>> >good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED. As i pointed out and
>> >must reiterate, the idea of socialized medicine is modern. From 1776 to
>> >the 20th century, the notion of the government's providing socialized
>> >medicine to the people really didn't exist.
>>
>> I know, but all sorts of things didn't exist, such as
>> welfare and child labour laws. We move on, and things
>> get better.
>
>FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
>
>otherwise, "change" is not necessarily for the better.
>
Well I meant a �moral� right. I don�t think in terms of a
Constitution because we don�t have one.
So I think everyone has a *moral* right to health care.
This really isn't a socialist view, Vince, as I will
explain below. It's a Christian view.
>> >This is the heart of the problems and issue with liberals and the way
>> >they look at the constitution. WE go by what the founding fathers
>> >intended. A liberal goes by what he thinks is a good idea, so he thinks
>> >something like gay marriage is constitutional.
>>
>> The founding fathers didn't live in an age of modern medicine
>> though. They had no concept of the modern age.
>
>That is a non sequitur. Doctors existed in 1776...had someone stood up
>and suggested the country should pay for everyone's doctor bills because
>that should be a constitutional right, they'd have been laughed (or
>lashed) out of philadelphia
>
Neither did they stand up and suggest that slavery should be
illegal though.
Your Constitution mentions equality though, doesn't it?
>> But consider this: we have had an NHS for about 60 years,
>> and it would be political suicide for a politician to
>> state that he/she is against it. The public would never
>> vote for a party that wants to dismantle it.
>>
>> Don't you think that is very telling?
>
>Perhaps. But FOX just interviewed a canadian lady who had brain cancer.
>In canada, she was told it would be up to a 6 month wait to get surgery
>for it under their system.
>
You can�t generalize from that. Canada�s health system is
very good according to the statistics and surveys that I have seen.
It ranks above your system every time.
Just one more point; in the UK every party is in favour of an NHS,
including the far right BNP, the right wing UKIP, and the
Conservatives.
So this is not considered a �socialist� thing here.
This is what the Conservative leader said about the NHS:
Quote:
��the NHS represents a simple, practical, common sense, human
understanding of a fantastic and precious fact of British life.
The moment you�re injured or fall ill, the moment something
happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are,
wherever you are from, whatever�s wrong, however much you�ve
got in the bank, there�s a place you can go where people will
look after you and do their best to make things right again.
�That�s why we are committed to the NHS and the principle of a
healthcare system that is free at the point of use, based on
need and not the ability to pay.�
End quote.
You might not want a system like ours, but you definitely
need a fairer system IMO.
Your President wants to make the system fairer, so I can't
see why you would object.
>> >I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
>> >minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
>> >
>> >...too bad you guys have such strict gun laws.
>> >
>>
>> It seems the Scottish minister was just a puppet in all this. He was
>> doing to bidding of Downing Street.
>
>Hmm...well, to hell with the PM then.
>
>But I'll say the guy sure SOUNDED like some liberal, feel-good nut
>wanting to show New Age tolerance and compassion
>
I think he was just covering up the fact that the release
of this terrorist was a political decision based on trade interests. Disgusting.
Anyway, one of the relatives of the victims made a statement
that disgusted me too. He said that, as a Christian, he didn�t
want the terrorist to spend his dying days in prison. He felt
that he had to show forgiveness and compassion.
I know this is often a common attitude among some Christians but
I�m *very* uncomfortable with it. If it was my relative who had
been murdered, I would want justice first. I see no contradiction
between the desire for justice and Christianity.
Very liberal Christians often put compassion
and forgiveness before justice and that disgusts me.
It cheapens human life.
>> >>
>> >> We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
>> >> Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
>> >> don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
>> >> from another country was eligible for a large house and free
>> >> car at taxpayers expense!
>> >
>> >That is the ultimate fruit of a liberal, tolerant society, huh?
>> >
>> >What you have is what WE would have if the liberals got to enact their
>> >good ideas without the conservatives being there to stop them.
You�re lucky because even your liberals are pretty conservative
in many respects. You don�t have the nutters of the far left
that we have here .
I doubt if you would ever have a political system like ours.
>> We do have a very liberal government, yes, and I'm
>> a Conservative because I want to see tougher sentencing
>> and tougher border controls, etc.
>
>Wait til the next election!
>
Yes, I was reading about what a new Conservative government
will do here and it sounded good, eg. tougher immigration laws
and turning back the tide of all this multicultural, and
politically correct stuff. I doubt if any more mosques or Muslim
groups will get public funding after the next election!
I can't wait for this change!
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
> In article <4A96708A....@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
> ...
>
> >FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
To clarify, so we know what's required, optional, and forbidden.
It's not your constitutional right to have health insurance
regulation,
but it *is* the Congress's constitutional right to pass such
regulation if they decide it is for the general welfare and
it is done in a way that doesn't discriminate.
(from Article I section 8:)
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
provide for the common Defence and general Welfare
of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States"
(modified by the 16th amendment to allow income taxes as well):
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment
among the several States, and without regard to any census or
enumeration."
So all these stupid deathers saying it's unconstitutional are just
talking nonsense.
--
Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 25, 11:22 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> ...
>
> > > > > ...
> >
> > > > > > Not according to a panel of independents, trying to be even-handed on
> > > > > > the topic I saw a few days ago.
> ...
> >
> > If you would like to refute my point that "They admitted that decisions
> > on extreme care are always made, but currently are made by the insurance
> > companies" do so right here and now or shut up.
>
> That wasn't your point. I said
> " What [Palin] said is that under this bill, the government
> would set up "death panels" to decide whether people
> like her Down-syndrome son were productive enough
> people to deserve to live or die. Of course that
> is an outrageous lie."
>
> You then said "not according to a panel of independents",
> meaning "A panel of independents came to the
> conclusion that Palin's statement was not a lie".
no, meaning "Palin is technically right--but such a system already
exists, and is handled by insurers"
>
> Saying that no insurance company, government or private,
> is going to cover everything in the world is so
> completely different from saying that the
> public option will set up "death panels"
> that equating the two is itself an outrageous lie.
It's an 'outrageous distortion' based on a technical truth.
That's called "politics as usual"
>
> > ...
> >
> > > Yes. That doesn't mean that the new legislation INTRODUCES a "death
> > > panel".
> >
> > In the strctiest sense of the term, yes it does, since it takes the same
> > "death panel" decision-making process from a group of insurers, to a
> > group of liberal appointees.
>
> Therefore it INTRODUCES nothing.
...but GOVERNMENT decision-making.
I don't know which can do a worse job--insurers or government. It's real
close.
It SHOULD allow the DOCTOR and/or hospital review board to make the
decision.
That too unacceptable to you?
>
> Saying that a bill preserves the status quo about something is
> extraordinarily different from saying that a bill INTRODUCES something
> frightening.
I can at least partially agree. But then I hate ALL politicians who make
the same sort of distortion, and thus am even-handed and denounce BOTH
sides, while you seem to imply only conservatives do such things
>
> >
> > The effect is the same. Palin is technically right.
>
> She's technically wrong, and she's morally wrong,
> and if there is a Christian afterlife,
> she will be consumed by the eternal fire whose
> worms never turn away!!!
as will pelosi for lying about water boarding. Or ted kennedy for
criminal negligence, if not outright murder
>
> ...
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1. Are you denying that some sort of panel would be set up that would
> > make an ultimate decision on whether to approve or disapprove extreme
> > and expensive health care treatment in individual cases? (I gave an
> > example of a 70 y/o alcoholic needing a liver transplant.)
>
> All insurance will decide what to cover. Nothing different about
> public plans.
>
> >
> > 2. If the answer is YES, you deny such a panel would be set up, then who
> > will be making the decision on whether government funds would cover the
> > man's liver transplant? Are any and all options for medical procedures
> > rubber stamped at the will of the patient and/or dr.?
> >
> > If the answer is NO, there would be SOME sort of panel to decide cases
> > like that, Palin is technically right, this WOULD set up a "new"
> > GOVERNMENT panel to make these decisions.
>
> No it would not be new, so Palin is technically wrong.
The concept isn't new--allowing the government to make life or death
health care decisions thru a panel of (liberal) appointees is
>
> Palin would only be right if it were something new and dangerous
> unique to this bill.
I don't agree. I maintain she is technically right.
Otherwise it is an egregious lie to suggest
> that the something new and dangerous is the result of the bill,
> and by implication a reason for rejecting the bill.
>
> It's as if I said in 1968, thanks to Richard Nixon, people are
> going to get drafted into the Army. When the reality was
> that people were drafted into the Army before. It would not
> be a defense of the lie to say, "yes but now it's different
> because they would be getting draft letters saying
> 'Nixon' whereas before they got draft letters saying 'Johnson',
> so this is a NEW system".
If the draft board were now replaced by business executives from
Blackwater under nixon's revision of the system, it WOULD technically be
a new system
>
> >
> > 3. If such a panel will exist, will the PATIENT be able to appear before
> > it, and make his case? If the answer is YES, Palin is again technically
> > right.
> >
> > Or if the patient would be forbidden to personally appear before or
> > write an appeal to such a board, then Palin is wrong.
>
> Palin is wrong unless the public option creates a risk to patients
> that didn't exist before.
>
> And in fact, what happens is that under the public option
> more people are covered, and their premiums go down.
You mean like all our phone bills went down under the break-up of the
phone companies' monopoly?
>
> ...
> >
> > > So Palin is lying.
> >
> > As your fellow democrats do every time they open their mouths.
>
> False.
no, true
>
> >
> > No difference. Your side are just as big a group of liars.
>
> No. Not as frequently and not as outrageously.
No difference between them. You merely are blinded by your own
prejudice, while I am evan-handed toward both sides
>
> I want to hear something as outrageous as you're
> going to euthanize grandma because there's
> a public option.
You mean from a vicious, outageous, fear-mongering distortion calculated
to frighten and deceive people, that came from a democrat? Sure--here's
one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww
>
> > > ... Remember her statement implies
> > > don't choose the public option because it will hurt Trix
> > > (or whatever her kid's name is) and lots of people like him,
> > > not don't choose the public option because the identity
> > > of the faceless bureaucrat will change.
>
> Remember Palin's statement implies
> don't choose the public option because it will
> hurt Trix and lots of people like him, not don't choose
> the public option because the identity of the
> faceless bureaucrat will change.
yes--it is a distortion of truth
>
> ...
> > > In short, she is setting a stumbling block before the blind, and will
> > > (if Christianity is true) spend eternity squatting in boiling
> > > excrement.
> > > Or sulfur, depending on your precise theological interpretation.
> >
> > As will someone like Pelosi who lies about water boarding, and supports
> > the death of the unborn on demand
>
> She didn't lie about waterboarding.
If this is an example of how accurate the rest of your beliefs are, i
can probably rest my case
Guess Leon Panetta is a republican/bush shill, huh?
Cheney and his
> evil henchmen lied about waterboarding as did the
> pundits of the right until one actually volunteered to
> get waterboarded.
>
> ...
> >
> > > No. Give me an example of a comparably
> > > outrageous lie from Howard Dean on this issue.
> >
> > I'm not going to argue comparables, and dean is only one liar among a
> > legion of liars,
>
> If he is, I want to hear an example of one of his lies.
"Karl Rove and others have talked about going back to the McKinley era
before there was any kind of social safety net in this country."
Not true. What Rove talked about is how the McKinley presidency touched
off a Republican era in American politics. Rove would like Bush to begin
a new era of Republican dominance--but he never said this should be done
by removing the safety net.
He also said, "The real effect of the Bush tax cuts has actually been to
raise taxes on most middle-class people and to cut their services,"
Not true--bush's TAX CUTTING was one of the things propelling us into a
downward spiral
Dean said a balanced budget "is the key to turning the economy around,
as Bill Clinton showed." When did clinton have a balanced budget? No
president since Herbert Hoover has believed a balanced budget was the
best economic catalyst.
>
> > as is bohner, pelosi, palin, and so on. The point about
> > all politicians doing this sort of "lie" stands.
>
> They don't. Republicans have been just pulling stuff
> out of their butts.
>
> ...
> >
> > > Why don't you just forget about "rejecting Christ" and get back
> > > to telling your buddies not to make up outrageous lies to attack
> > > their enemies with and serve the insurance companies over the people?
> >
> > Why don't you tell YOUR buddies to stop fighting for abortion on demand,
> > and protecting the ambulance chasers?
>
> Because I haven't seen liberals and liberal pundits going around these
> last few
> months writing editorials and making speeches about how we need more
> abortion on demand.
Scaling the language barrier: "A woman's right to choose" = "Abortion on
demand"
I hear liberals perenially talkling about supporting "A woman's right to
choose" e.g., there it is
>
> The insurance companies are "ambulance chasers" in that they
> keep demanding that you tell them about every time you went
> to the hospital, so they can pull the plug on your insurance
> if you went too many times or forgot to tell them about one of the
> times.
>
If this is an example of how accurate the rest of your beliefs are, i
can probably rest my case.
So the LAWYERS aren't the real ambulance chasers--the insurers are?
incredible!
> ...
>
> > > Republicans made a big stink about that, and it turned out that
> > > the CIA was lying not Pelosi.
> >
> > Prove that statement. Then explain why obama appointee leon panetta
> > indicates she is a liar when YOU say it is the CIA who lied:
>
> Panetta finally admitted the CIA was wrong.
Please give me a direct quote where panetta retracts his statement about
pelosi being informed of the water boarding
>
> >
> > "Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.
>
> It wasn't their policy to mislead Congress. It just happened
> that in this case, despite their policy, they did mislead Congress.
Are you saying that THIS quote is affirming that pelosi is correct, she
was never informed???
If this is an example of how accurate the rest of your beliefs are, i
can probably rest my case
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Is panetta a liar? The answer is yes or no.
>
> Yes. He lied and then checked up and retracted the lie.
quote plz.
A rose by any other name. I don't want my PREMIUM going up one cent
because some illegal, somewhere, employed a loophole to have his health
care paid for by the insurance plan.
Isn't his intent to make health insurance MANDATORY rather than
voluntary?
>
> ...
>
> >
> > You keep invoking the word "change". "Change" is irrelevant. What is
> > relevant is what the bill will or will not do with tax dollars
>
> No.
>
> That is a disgusting subterfuge.
>
> You are saying that these abuses will happen. And in defense
> you're retreating to the position that actually no new abuses
> will happen, and maybe even fewer abuses will happen --
> what really bothers you is that people's money filtered
> through the US rather than people's money filtered
> through Aetna are doing the abuses.
>
> So you're not opposed to being run over by a truck
> as long as the driver works for a private company, yeah?
> ...
>
> >
> > Then you should oppose it as a separation of church and state basis, or
> > else you're a hypocrite
>
> It's not an establishment of religion, so no.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > And, as I've told you before, you seem to understand virtually nothing
> > about christianity and the new testament.
> >
> > Every time you open your mouth to say paul contradicts Jesus, you prove
> > that
> >
>
> No. I correct your misimpressions that he doesn't.
If this is an example of how accurate the rest of your beliefs are, i
can probably rest my case
>
> --
> Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 25, 11:24 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 25, 8:05 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > Emma wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > > But you said that if it's not in the Constitution then it
> > > > > can't be justified. And yet you justify education.
> >
> > > > You implied it's constitutional, and I am pointing out that not every
> > > > good idea is constitutional, and thus MANDATED.
> >
> > > Constitutional doesn't mean MANDATED; it means ALLOWED.
> > > ("Unconstitutional" means FORBIDDEN.)
> >
> > > And education and health care are both constitutional; they
> > > fall under the "general welfare" provisions of Article I that
> > > authorizes Congress to tax and spend.
I did not write that
>
> So I'm right about the founding fathers authorizing this sort of
> thing,
> and you are wrong that it is unauthorized.
Not at all, or they would have been paying dr bills from 1776 on.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > > It is cost-neutral in the long run, and besides it does a public
> > > good in reducing costs, so it is more worth a trillion dollars
> > > than the Bush war was that you conservatives not only
> > > applauded but told opponents to shut up about for the
> > > good of the country.
> >
> > Apparently your "personal recollection of something said orally doesn't
> > count, because your problem is ... lack of correct interpretation of
> > what you hear"
> >
> > I have repeatedly denounced bush and iraq, and you just bore false
> > witness against me by suggesting I was a blind bush supporter.
>
> I said "you conseratives", not you personally.
But you implied I was a part of that group, and someone reading it would
assume you must have knowledge that I was a bush/iraq supporter, when I
denounced both daily
The conservatives
> did applaud Bush and his war and called liberals traitors and
> worse for protesting.
liberals tend not to be patriotic.
>
> --
> Rob Strom
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 27, 7:39 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Emma wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> > FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
> >
> > otherwise, "change" is not necessarily for the better.
> >
> > We could have a group of liberal appointees look at SAT scores and
> > psychological profiles of our children, and the mandate they receive
> > traning in occupations THEY think they would do well in.
> >
> > That would be "change"...it would be "for the benefit of society"...and
> > it would not be good.
> >
> > But I can see liberal educators salivating at the thought of
> > manipulating society in ways like that
>
> No they're not.
Oh yes they are! I don't put it past the socialist liberals out here at
all!
>
> >
> > I think any "reform" we need to healthcare can be handled by tort reform
> > and some tax creditis, not trillion $ overhauls
> >
>
> You know that this is false, since I have already explained to you
> that malpractise-related costs are only a small percentage of the
> high costs.
Your explanation holds no water.
>
> You are repeating sodomite talking points.
You're the one who supports the gay agenda
>
> Why are you aligning with Republican sodomites who are leading you
> into the lowest levels of hell (if it exists)?
>
> You should support Christian health care.
If this is an example of how accurate the rest of your beliefs are, i
can probably rest my case
>
> ...
> >
> > That is a non sequitur. Doctors existed in 1776...had someone stood up
> > and suggested the country should pay for everyone's doctor bills because
> > that should be a constitutional right, they'd have been laughed (or
> > lashed) out of philadelphia
>
> You know perfectly well that the Obama plan is not for the country
> paying for everyone's doctor bills. It's for *****insurance*****
> (i.e. risk pooling).
It's called Taxing the hell out of everyone to pay for socialized
medicine
Caring for the sick is Biblical. Risk pooling
> is also Biblical -- goes back to at least to Joseph who
> saved a fraction of the crop of prosperous years to cover
> the famine years.
> ...
> >
> > > Don't you think that is very telling?
> >
> > Perhaps. But FOX just interviewed a canadian lady who had brain cancer.
> > In canada, she was told it would be up to a 6 month wait to get surgery
> > for it under their system.
> >
> > Not wanting to die under their health care limitations, she mortgaged
> > her house, flew to the US and paid cash to the Mayo Clinic to get the
> > operation done in only a few days.
>
> Leave it to fox to cherry pick the exceptional cases to make them
> look like the typical cases.
Truth is truth.
Gets your goat when they show what REALLY goes on under socialized
medicine--if you have more then a broken arm
They're disgusting liars, and will
> spend eternity in boiling excrement
Along with Kennedy/Pelosi...
if Christianity is true.
>
> >
> > Think I like our system better than canada's, and what problems there
> > are can be taken care of infinitely cheaper than obama's way
>
> Obama's way will nearly pay for itself in the short term, and
> will be definitely better in the long run.
Acoording to his claim, with no proof whatever!
Then when it fails and does the opposite, your view will be: "Well, it
would have been even worse if we HADN'T done it!"
That's just how you liberals lie and keep from admitting you were wrong
even when your ideas fail
>
> > ...
> >
> > Unfortunately, the liberals won't let us do that either. Out here,
> > they're forcing felons out early because there are so many criminals in
> > this liberal, tolerant state that the prisons are bursting at the seams
>
> Do you think that the red states have less crime?
the highest crime rate is in liberal, tolerant washington DC. The lowest
is in ND
>
> --
> Rob Strom
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>And who runs the hospitals and wants to take credit for your health
>>care--the government! Nevertheless, I was just quoting from the link you
>>referred to. It said, "The average wait for treatment on the NHS is now
>>just
>>8.6 weeks - the shortest since records began, according to new government
>>figures."
> The government collects the figures but they are provided
> by the hospitals. And btw, even the opposition party agrees that
> the figures are correct.
Of course *all* the English people will agree with their own system. Even
Republicans in our country must agree with our own Social Security system,
even though they may have earlier rejected such a system. We have a way of
defending our system, if at all we currently are helping people who really
have needs. But it doesn't really mean that there aren't other, better
solutions.
The hospitals and the government seem to be "in bed" together. You're just
citing good old English patriotism, provided dutifully by the government who
most benefits from the "security" they provide you.
> Have you evidence that GPs in the UK deny patients
> a referral for an operation?
>>That is an average for those who get on the list for an operation to start
>>with. My niece was diagnosed and *not* put on a list. She was put on some
>>kind of "eventual list," and had to wait far longer than 8 weeks. She had
>>to
>>wait over a year, I believe! But I'm checking on that now. I e-mailed her
>>yesterday, so I'll get back with you.
> You can't make assumptions about our health service based
> on one person's experience! You don't even know her medical
> details or even if she had to wait! Even if she did wait, there
> could be medical reasons for that.
I told you I would ask her, and she responded. (This does not, of course,
mean she is opposed to your system.) As a nurse I think she is in a better
position than you to know these things (unless you also work in the health
system). Here is what she e-mailed me yesterday...
(quote)
Waiting times have decreased more recently, though I'm not sure how long a
wait for that op would be now. It was over 8 years ago when I had my
gallbladder out but I remember the pain well. I was back and forth to the GP
and A&E in agony and was told I was an urgent case but it was at least 9
months wait till I got the op to have my gallbladder removed.
(unquote)
Yes, I *can* make assumptions about your health service based on one
person's experience. If she works as a nurse, I can assume she knows
something about your health service. And if I know she waited at least 9
months for her operation to have her gallbladder removed, and if I know she
was forced to wait and continue her studies while in tremendous pain, I can
assume that at least in her case the system didn't seem to work in a
compassionate way!
You may have a perfectly workable system. But any system that rewards
irresponsible adults like my two children over there needs to "have its head
examined." ;)
>>No, I'm talking about my niece and my mother-in-law.
> Two people?? Is that the extent of your survey??...
And you think two people don't count? You think there haven't been others?
Are you assuming that 60 million people *less two people* are perfectly
happy with their income and with their health service? I can mention a third
person, if you care--my stepson. But I don't think he deserves anything at
all...not at least at this point. His exgirlfriend, who is having his baby
(possibly next week), does deserve help though.
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>
>> The government collects the figures but they are provided
>> by the hospitals. And btw, even the opposition party agrees that
>> the figures are correct.
>
>Of course *all* the English people will agree with their own system.
No, the Conservative party criticizes the Labour government
over its management of the NHS. So if the figures about
waiting times were inaccurate, you can be sure that the
Conservatives would make a big issue of it.
The fact is though that the average waiting time is now 8 weeks.
I'm sure that's not what you've been led to believe, but it's
true.
>
>The hospitals and the government seem to be "in bed" together. You're just
>citing good old English patriotism, provided dutifully by the government who
>most benefits from the "security" they provide you.
Not at all. I'm not a Labour party supporter; I'm a conservative.
I hate the current government.
I see the consequences of your own health system and I don't
like it.
Most Americans never travel outside of America though,
so they don't have experience of other systems.
>
>> You can't make assumptions about our health service based
>> on one person's experience! You don't even know her medical
>> details or even if she had to wait! Even if she did wait, there
>> could be medical reasons for that.
>
>I told you I would ask her, and she responded. (This does not, of course,
>mean she is opposed to your system.)
Well if she's *not* opposed to our system, then
what does that tell you?
It doesn't really help your argument to quote her, does it?
> As a nurse I think she is in a better
>position than you to know these things (unless you also work in the health
>system). Here is what she e-mailed me yesterday...
>
>(quote)
>Waiting times have decreased more recently, though I'm not sure how long a
>wait for that op would be now. It was over 8 years ago when I had my
>gallbladder out but I remember the pain well. I was back and forth to the GP
>and A&E in agony and was told I was an urgent case but it was at least 9
>months wait till I got the op to have my gallbladder removed.
>(unquote)
That was ***8*** years ago!!!!
And she says that waiting times have decreased, which
actually backs up my argument and defeats yours.
>Yes, I *can* make assumptions about your health service based on one
>person's experience. If she works as a nurse, I can assume she knows
>something about your health service. And if I know she waited at least 9
>months for her operation to have her gallbladder removed, and if I know she
>was forced to wait and continue her studies while in tremendous pain, I can
>assume that at least in her case the system didn't seem to work in a
>compassionate way!
It was 8 years ago!! You can't generalize about the entire
system from that, and you certainly can't generalize about
it **today**, since it was 8 blooming years ago!!!
In any case, 15 thousand people die each year in America.
Deaths that could have been prevented with proper health
care.
So one person's wait for a gallbladder operation
*8* years ago in the UK, sort of pales by comparison.
>You may have a perfectly workable system. But any system that rewards
>irresponsible adults like my two children over there needs to "have its head
>examined." ;)
What do you mean? What rewards?
>>>No, I'm talking about my niece and my mother-in-law.
>
>> Two people?? Is that the extent of your survey??...
>
>And you think two people don't count? You think there haven't been others?
>Are you assuming that 60 million people *less two people* are perfectly
>happy with their income and with their health service? I can mention a third
>person, if you care--my stepson. But I don't think he deserves anything at
>all...not at least at this point.
Your stepson's opinion is hardly a good argument if he
would have got nothing at all in America.
And three people is not a good survey, no. Of course it
isn't. And one of those -- you admitted -- is still in favour
of the NHS!!! I would guess the others are too.
Anyway, I'm not going to deny that lots of people moan
about the NHS. But if they still want to keep it (and
the vast majority of Brits do!) then that says it all.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
vince garcia
That is correct. But many of the founding fathers DID want to end
slavery with the constitution, but they could not have a country without
allowing it in the then-more-influential South. So it continued for a
few more decades.
No one wanted to have any sort of socialized medicine.
>
>
> >> But consider this: we have had an NHS for about 60 years,
> >> and it would be political suicide for a politician to
> >> state that he/she is against it. The public would never
> >> vote for a party that wants to dismantle it.
> >>
> >> Don't you think that is very telling?
> >
> >Perhaps. But FOX just interviewed a canadian lady who had brain cancer.
> >In canada, she was told it would be up to a 6 month wait to get surgery
> >for it under their system.
> >
>
> You can�t generalize from that. Canada�s health system is
> very good according to the statistics and surveys that I have seen.
> It ranks above your system every time.
Then I don't see know why i don't hear too many people saying they would
swap over
I don't think the lady in question would hold that canada's system is so
much better than ours
>
> Just one more point; in the UK every party is in favour of an NHS,
> including the far right BNP, the right wing UKIP, and the
> Conservatives.
> So this is not considered a �socialist� thing here.
k. But it is here, hence the phrase SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
You need to keep in mind many liberals here are socialist to communist,
believing that the State should render unto everyone according to their
needs, and the people should serve the State according to their
abilities
>
> This is what the Conservative leader said about the NHS:
>
> Quote:
> ��the NHS represents a simple, practical, common sense, human
> understanding of a fantastic and precious fact of British life.
> The moment you�re injured or fall ill, the moment something
> happens to someone you love, you know that whoever you are,
> wherever you are from, whatever�s wrong, however much you�ve
> got in the bank, there�s a place you can go where people will
> look after you and do their best to make things right again.
>
> �That�s why we are committed to the NHS and the principle of a
> healthcare system that is free at the point of use, based on
> need and not the ability to pay.�
>
> End quote.
Well, that's great for you I guess
>
> You might not want a system like ours, but you definitely
> need a fairer system IMO.
> Your President wants to make the system fairer, so I can't
> see why you would object.
>
> >> >I hope some angry relative of a lockerbee victim hunts down the scottish
> >> >minister of justice, and puts a bullet in his head
> >> >
> >> >...too bad you guys have such strict gun laws.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It seems the Scottish minister was just a puppet in all this. He was
> >> doing to bidding of Downing Street.
> >
> >Hmm...well, to hell with the PM then.
> >
> >But I'll say the guy sure SOUNDED like some liberal, feel-good nut
> >wanting to show New Age tolerance and compassion
> >
>
> I think he was just covering up the fact that the release
> of this terrorist was a political decision based on trade interests. Disgusting.
>
> Anyway, one of the relatives of the victims made a statement
> that disgusted me too. He said that, as a Christian, he didn�t
> want the terrorist to spend his dying days in prison. He felt
> that he had to show forgiveness and compassion.
you're also told to be wise as serpents.
>
> I know this is often a common attitude among some Christians but
> I�m *very* uncomfortable with it. If it was my relative who had
> been murdered, I would want justice first. I see no contradiction
> between the desire for justice and Christianity.
Then perhaps you can accept that a Christian can deny the idea of
socialized medicine is a "Christian" command
>
> Very liberal Christians often put compassion
> and forgiveness before justice and that disgusts me.
> It cheapens human life.
non-christian liberals do that too...it's a liberal thing
>
> >> >>
> >> >> We go to the other extreme though. We are far too soft.
> >> >> Are prisons are like hotels. We throw money at people who
> >> >> don't even belong here! Under our EU system, a convicted terrorist
> >> >> from another country was eligible for a large house and free
> >> >> car at taxpayers expense!
> >> >
> >> >That is the ultimate fruit of a liberal, tolerant society, huh?
> >> >
> >> >What you have is what WE would have if the liberals got to enact their
> >> >good ideas without the conservatives being there to stop them.
>
> You�re lucky because even your liberals are pretty conservative
> in many respects. You don�t have the nutters of the far left
> that we have here .
Don't know i'd agree with that. A Black California Democratic
Congresswoman, Diane Watson, was just shown praising Fidel Castro who
"Was One of Brightest Leaders I Have Ever Met"
> I doubt if you would ever have a political system like ours.
Don't see much difference. It's all liberal vs conservative in the end.
>
> >> We do have a very liberal government, yes, and I'm
> >> a Conservative because I want to see tougher sentencing
> >> and tougher border controls, etc.
> >
> >Wait til the next election!
> >
>
> Yes, I was reading about what a new Conservative government
> will do here and it sounded good, eg. tougher immigration laws
> and turning back the tide of all this multicultural, and
> politically correct stuff. I doubt if any more mosques or Muslim
> groups will get public funding after the next election!
> I can't wait for this change!
>
did you say you had never seen, or know what the soap opera DARK SHADOWS
was?
vince garcia
>
> On Aug 28, 7:52 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article <4A96708A....@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > >FYI--i should have said CONSTITUTIONAL _RIGHT_ not just constitutional
>
> To clarify, so we know what's required, optional, and forbidden.
>
> It's not your constitutional right to have health insurance
> regulation,
> but it *is* the Congress's constitutional right to pass such
> regulation if they decide it is for the general welfare and
> it is done in a way that doesn't discriminate.
Yes. Then the SC gets to decide whether the action was actually
constitutional if someone takes it to court arguing it is a separation
of powers, discriminatory, or some other contitutional issue theory they
appeal to
randy
"Emma"
randy
> No, the Conservative party criticizes the Labour government
> over its management of the NHS. So if the figures about
> waiting times were inaccurate, you can be sure that the
> Conservatives would make a big issue of it.
> The fact is though that the average waiting time is now 8 weeks.
> I'm sure that's not what you've been led to believe, but it's
> true.
As I said, the average may have to do with getting on a particular list to
start with! How long does it take to get on that list? Is it just the whim
of a doctor? What if the doctor is incompetent or negligent? What if he
doesn't like you?
>>The hospitals and the government seem to be "in bed" together. You're just
>>citing good old English patriotism, provided dutifully by the government
>>who
>>most benefits from the "security" they provide you.
> Not at all. I'm not a Labour party supporter; I'm a conservative.
> I hate the current government.
I agree with you about that--but not about the idea that it is "evil" to
oppose our proposed "public option" in our country. To reward evil or
foolish people with the savings of responsible citizens is indeed an evil,
in my opinion. And that's what you asked about. That's what you were
concerned with when you heard Sarah Palin refer to this.
> I see the consequences of your own health system and I don't
> like it.
> Most Americans never travel outside of America though,
> so they don't have experience of other systems.
But my wife lived over there for perhaps 30 years before she came over here,
and she is still a British citizen. Her experience was that she paid lots of
money out of her paycheck for your health system. And her Mum, my
Mother-In-Law, hates the doctors she gets, and is very dissatisfied with
your health service. The fact you dismiss the experience of my niece
concerns me. Is it really that important to establish that you have an
"8-week wait" over the experience of someone who 8 years ago waited 9
months? Did the system work so good 8 years ago? Or are you just trying to
say a bad system can improve over time?
> Well if she's *not* opposed to our system, then
> what does that tell you?
She doesn't know any other system, and derives from that system what she
needs. The question begs, Is there a better system from which she could be
receiving better help?
> It doesn't really help your argument to quote her, does it?
I guess you're not following the argument too well. A *long painful wait*
for a gallbladder operation is *not* a good system, even if the person
depends on that system to be treated.
>> As a nurse I think she is in a better
>>position than you to know these things (unless you also work in the health
>>system). Here is what she e-mailed me yesterday...
>>
>>(quote)
>>Waiting times have decreased more recently, though I'm not sure how long a
>>wait for that op would be now. It was over 8 years ago when I had my
>>gallbladder out but I remember the pain well. I was back and forth to the
>>GP
>>and A&E in agony and was told I was an urgent case but it was at least 9
>>months wait till I got the op to have my gallbladder removed.
>>(unquote)
> That was ***8*** years ago!!!!
> And she says that waiting times have decreased, which
> actually backs up my argument and defeats yours.
And you want us to turn to a system that has to go through an evolution like
this? I still believe that lots of money are stolen from good British people
who work hard for their money, just to give money to worthless people like
my stepson who may abuse that system. British people who have grown up under
such a system may be grateful for it, but may not have a clue how much money
they have forfeited for a system not even as good as our American one. They
may not realize how bad their doctors' opinions have been, why they are not
put on an "urgent list," or why they fall into the extreme range of this "8
week" period.
And how are they to ever know the treatment they've been offered is *less*
than what they really need, because it is been "rationed?" Do you really
know what changed from 8 years ago to now? Maybe less operations are
recommended? Maybe people are led to believe they shouldn't have certain
operations? Maybe Conservatives don't complain because criticism might lead
to an expansion of the current health system--something they may be opposed
to?
> In any case, 15 thousand people die each year in America.
> Deaths that could have been prevented with proper health
> care....
Some people die because they refuse to even see a doctor. You can't count
deaths and say "America" is responsible because "these deaths could have
been prevented." You have to know what kind of deaths they were!
>>You may have a perfectly workable system. But any system that rewards
>>irresponsible adults like my two children over there needs to "have its
>>head
>>examined." ;)
> What do you mean? What rewards?
The rewards of a universal health care system, a system that offers free
health services for anybody free of charge. Somebody has to pay for it. If
all the citizens of the country have to pay for it, irresponsible people can
use that service at will, and actually waste the money.
> Your stepson's opinion is hardly a good argument if he
> would have got nothing at all in America.
> And three people is not a good survey, no. Of course it
> isn't. And one of those -- you admitted -- is still in favour
> of the NHS!!! I would guess the others are too.
> Anyway, I'm not going to deny that lots of people moan
> about the NHS. But if they still want to keep it (and
> the vast majority of Brits do!) then that says it all.
You can have your opinion. All it amounts to is the British don't know
anything better than what they have right now. And the view you have of
America is no different than what you claim my view of Britain is--a matter
of propaganda and hate-America rhetoric.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> My concern is that whenever a public health system serves the entire
> country, including those who contribute nothing, you have to ration your
> resources.
"Any insurance plan has to ration resources, and often in very
counterproductive ways."
Yes, but the costs for irresponsible people are higher than for people who
are responsible. This properly penalizes irresponsible people, and does not
force responsible people to bear the burden for all.
"For example, as a diabetic, it is considered medically important
for me to have dental hygiene appointments every three months,
but my company-sponsored health care plan will only cover
them every six months. That's rationing."
Your company-sponsored health care plan should cover your need for 3 month
visits on a different basis other than "dental." You have a health issue,
diabetes, that would not be covered under an average dental plan.
"My company-sponsored health care plan claimed to support
free "preventative care" not subject to a deductible or a co-pay.
But when my cardiologist ordered a routine stress test to
make sure that the arteries in my heart hadn't changed
and wouldn't require additional medication to prevent
future blockages, the insurance company refused to
cover it."
Insurance companies can act in an irresponsible way, just like any
individual, and must be forced by regulation to err on the side of your
health. That may require government regulation, because it is impossible for
the average citizen to go to court to challenge insurance companies every
time this happens.
"So please don't tell me that the decision not to cover
everything or to claim to cover something and then
renege on it is some new invention associated with
insurance plans run by the government."
It isn't. That's a problem with our *current* system, which also is not so
good. But it is *better* than a government-run system, because there would
then be only two alternatives. Either the system will go bankrupt, or
rationing would take place. The facts could then be skewed in favor of
making the system survive financially. Older people would be the first to
contribute to the "survival" of this system, by foregoing operations that
are not "recommended" or "reasonable" in view of the brevity of their
remaining years.
"In both cases a faceless bureaucrat is contradicting my doctor.
As a retiree, it's too late for me to start a new career with
a different employer in the hope that maybe the new one
will have a plan that covers 3-month dental cleanings or
that covers stress tests. Except for ideologues, there's
no difference whether the faceless bureaucrat calls himself
an Aetna bureaucrat or a public option bureaucrat."
Yes, the same problem, which is why I would not recommend going to a "public
option" solution. Government is not good for anything other than regulating.
Government can pass laws to protect the people, but when it acts in its own
self-interest, such as when it's *in business,* then it acts as corrupt as a
large insurance company.
"Either way they're telling me to do without my
stress test, or go out on the street with a tin cup
and hope that somebody will be kind enough to
help pay for it."
I am all for your survival, Rob. We should petition the government to
"regulate" companies that refuse to pay reasonable requests for service. A
stiff penalty imposed upon a few cases of obvious negligence would help
change their tendency to turn down "questionable" claims.
randy
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>People themselves make those decisions when they have the capability to
>>make
>>good decisions and decide one way or the other.
> But we're talking about people who present themselves as needing
> medical care but unable to pay. How do you decide who is
> deserving of help and who is not? What are your criteria?
It is a matter of a free society helping themselves to information that is
uncensored and available in abundance. When we make choices, we should not
have the government determine what jobs we should take, what plans we should
be on, what doctors we should get. When people try to work, but cannot get
it, or can't get a job that adequately pays for real medical needs, the
government, serving the people, has to set up criteria for determining that
there really is a financial need. The government can set up things like a
"poverty level," or a list of what operations are critical for our
well-being.
> But we were talking about health care, not welfare.
In our system, Welfare contributes to the poor family's medical costs.
>>On the contrary, God let the man on the road get beat up, because he chose
>>to go down that road.
> I have no idea what point you're making with that sentence.
The point is that when the government tells someone what system he must be
under, what system he must pay for, then he has to go down a "particular
road." But in a free system, people can pay for their own health plans, and
not have to bear the burden for a system available to all, and abused by
many irresponsible people.
> On the other hand, you were saying: If you meet with misfortune,
> you shouldn't expect the rest of us to bail you out.
The person who meets with misfortune, or the poor family, *is taken care of*
under our system. We have Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare,
along with a host of compassionate resources for those in need, both public
and religious. We have Housing programs, emergency resources, etc. Some of
this comes by the voluntary contributions of good people, and some by our
system, which recognizes we *all* have legitimate needs in emergency
situations.
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>> No, the Conservative party criticizes the Labour government
>> over its management of the NHS. So if the figures about
>> waiting times were inaccurate, you can be sure that the
>> Conservatives would make a big issue of it.
>> The fact is though that the average waiting time is now 8 weeks.
>> I'm sure that's not what you've been led to believe, but it's
>> true.
>
>As I said, the average may have to do with getting on a particular list to
>start with! How long does it take to get on that list? Is it just the whim
>of a doctor? What if the doctor is incompetent or negligent? What if he
>doesn't like you?
If the doctor is negligent, you can sue.
If you don't like your doctor, you can choose
another one.
>>>The hospitals and the government seem to be "in bed" together. You're just
>>>citing good old English patriotism, provided dutifully by the government
>>>who
>>>most benefits from the "security" they provide you.
>
>> Not at all. I'm not a Labour party supporter; I'm a conservative.
>> I hate the current government.
>
>I agree with you about that--but not about the idea that it is "evil" to
>oppose our proposed "public option" in our country. To reward evil or
>foolish people with the savings of responsible citizens is indeed an evil,
>in my opinion. And that's what you asked about. That's what you were
>concerned with when you heard Sarah Palin refer to this.
Is that what Sarah Palin meant when she said our system
was "evil"?
Our system may have its faults, and lots of things about the
NHS need reforming, but I do think it's a morally better system
than you have in the US.
I think it's completely immoral to have a system that denies
healthcare to some on the basis
that they are considered inferior in some way.
Basically, you (and Sarah Palin, apparently) are saying
that some Americans are inferior and not worthy of being
relieved of pain and suffering.
Yet Christians are told not to judge.
> The fact you dismiss the experience of my niece
>concerns me. Is it really that important to establish that you have an
>"8-week wait" over the experience of someone who 8 years ago waited 9
>months?
Er, *8* years ago, Randy.
I'm sure that if I gave an example of your system from 8 years
ago, you would dismiss it too!
>Did the system work so good 8 years ago? Or are you just trying to
>say a bad system can improve over time?
Yes, of course things can improve.
The NHS will improve much more when we get a new Conservative
government.
>> Well if she's *not* opposed to our system, then
>> what does that tell you?
>
>She doesn't know any other system, and derives from that system what she
>needs. The question begs, Is there a better system from which she could be
>receiving better help?
There might be a better system, but it isn't yours.
A better system would be one that ranks higher than ours
and yet still covers 100% of the people.
France ranks number one. Their government covers 100% of
the people but their system is managed differently.
>
>> That was ***8*** years ago!!!!
>> And she says that waiting times have decreased, which
>> actually backs up my argument and defeats yours.
>
>And you want us to turn to a system that has to go through an evolution like
>this? I still believe that lots of money are stolen from good British people
>who work hard for their money, just to give money to worthless people like
>my stepson who may abuse that system.
Well I'm happy to pay taxes to provide healthcare for your
stepson. If he is a British citizen and he needs treatment
or an operation, he should have it.
It would be morally wrong for the rest of us to decide who is
worthy of health care and who is not.
I certainly wouldn't want to judge anyone as "worthless",
as you do above.
> British people who have grown up under
>such a system may be grateful for it, but may not have a clue how much money
>they have forfeited for a system not even as good as our American one.
>They may not realize how bad their doctors' opinions have been, why they are
>>not put on an "urgent list," or why they fall into the extreme range of >this
>"8 week" period.
>And how are they to ever know the treatment they've been offered is *less*
>than what they really need, because it is been "rationed?" Do you really
>know what changed from 8 years ago to now? Maybe less operations are
>recommended? Maybe people are led to believe they shouldn't have certain
>operations? Maybe Conservatives don't complain because criticism might lead
>to an expansion of the current health system--something they may be opposed
>to?
The Conservatives do complain about the government's
management of the NHS. Right wing papers make a big
deal about some of the NHS failings. But, the vast majority
of people in this country use the NHS, so of course
they want it to be as good as it can be.
>> In any case, 15 thousand people die each year in America.
>> Deaths that could have been prevented with proper health
>> care....
>
>Some people die because they refuse to even see a doctor. You can't count
>deaths and say "America" is responsible because "these deaths could have
>been prevented." You have to know what kind of deaths they were!
I reckon they are the sort of deaths that are caused by
tens of millions of your people not having health cover.
Anyway, why should you care? You were calling some of your
people "worthless" and not deserving of healthcare,
a few paragraphs back.
If they aren't deserving of healthcare, then some will die.
>>>You may have a perfectly workable system. But any system that rewards
>>>irresponsible adults like my two children over there needs to "have its
>>>head
>>>examined." ;)
>
>> What do you mean? What rewards?
>
>The rewards of a universal health care system, a system that offers free
>health services for anybody free of charge. Somebody has to pay for it. If
>all the citizens of the country have to pay for it, irresponsible people can
>use that service at will, and actually waste the money.
Better that they die then? It's a good way to cull all the
"worthless" people, I suppose.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > My concern is that whenever a public health system serves the entire
> > country, including those who contribute nothing, you have to ration your
> > resources.
>
> "Any insurance plan has to ration resources, and often in very
> counterproductive ways."
>
> Yes, but the costs for irresponsible people are higher than for people who
> are responsible. This properly penalizes irresponsible people, and does not
> force responsible people to bear the burden for all.
Jesus didn't say don't help the sick and poor, because they might
have been irresponsible. He just said help them.
You would let 10 people die rather than helping them because God
forbid
one of the ten might have been "irresponsible".
Even if you're not supposed to help the irresponsible, it's your
duty to help the other 9/10 who are needy for no fault of their own,
and the current system lets those who don't feel like helping
just give nothing and freeload.
Remember, you owe the bulk of the money you make to God, because
it is God's. And God insists that it be given to help
the needy. It's not "my money", "my wealth", mine, mine, mine,
as Bob Dole and John McCain and others thought. That's
Daffy Duck morality, not Christian or Jewish morality.
>
> "For example, as a diabetic, it is considered medically important
> for me to have dental hygiene appointments every three months,
> but my company-sponsored health care plan will only cover
> them every six months. That's rationing."
>
> Your company-sponsored health care plan should cover your need for 3 month
> visits on a different basis other than "dental." You have a health issue,
> diabetes, that would not be covered under an average dental plan.
It's an accident of the way current insurance is structured that
dental plans are separated out from other medical issues,
even though I have only one body, not two, and the issues
are not separate.
Any way, even though my company-sponsored health care plan
"should" cover my need, it doesn't.
And that's my point about Palin's disgusting moral failing.
She's trying to make it sound as if a public option
*introduces* rationing, putting a stumbling block in
the path of her blind and stupid audience, hoping
they won't notice that there's plenty of rationing going
on already.
My objection isn't to some subtle aspect of Palin's
political stance. It's to the log in her eye that lets
her just stand there and lie her head off about
death panels and killing grandma and all that
other stuff she spews, knowing it's false and misleading.
>
> "My company-sponsored health care plan claimed to support
> free "preventative care" not subject to a deductible or a co-pay.
> But when my cardiologist ordered a routine stress test to
> make sure that the arteries in my heart hadn't changed
> and wouldn't require additional medication to prevent
> future blockages, the insurance company refused to
> cover it."
>
> Insurance companies can act in an irresponsible way, just like any
> individual, and must be forced by regulation to err on the side of your
> health. That may require government regulation, because it is impossible for
> the average citizen to go to court to challenge insurance companies every
> time this happens.
But now you're advocating a level of socialism greater than
what your Republican colleagues are objecting to in the
Obama proposals!!!!
You're saying that the government should ***dictate*** to Aetna
what limits it should set, and how it should define "preventative"
care. Whereas the Democratic proposal does that to a much
less degree: letting Aetna do whatever it wants to, limited
only in very general ways, such as don't discriminate for
pre-existing conditions and so on. What the Democratic
proposal does is rather than sit in Aetna's boardroom and
micromanage Aetna's contracts, it says do whatever you want but
when someone eligible for the Insurance Exchange wants
to choose an insurer, they have a *choice* between Aetna
and a public option. In short, it's *more* like competition
and free choice than what you're proposing!!!
>
> "So please don't tell me that the decision not to cover
> everything or to claim to cover something and then
> renege on it is some new invention associated with
> insurance plans run by the government."
>
> It isn't. That's a problem with our *current* system, which also is not so
> good. But it is *better* than a government-run system, because there would
> then be only two alternatives. Either the system will go bankrupt, or
> rationing would take place.
That doesn't make any sense. Rationing already occurs.
The public option is ****not**** a government run system,
and in fact it is even less government run than what you
proposed a few paragraphs earlier, where the government
could *force* Aetna to pay for my 3-month dental hygiene
appointments. The public option just means that the
oligopolies get pressure to not behave like oligopolies
because additional competition is introduced, not
because a G-man dictates the oligopolies' decisions.
...
>
> "In both cases a faceless bureaucrat is contradicting my doctor.
> As a retiree, it's too late for me to start a new career with
> a different employer in the hope that maybe the new one
> will have a plan that covers 3-month dental cleanings or
> that covers stress tests. Except for ideologues, there's
> no difference whether the faceless bureaucrat calls himself
> an Aetna bureaucrat or a public option bureaucrat."
>
> Yes, the same problem, which is why I would not recommend going to a "public
> option" solution. Government is not good for anything other than regulating.
Insurance is **all** about regulating!!!
You do realize that whether it's Aetna insurance or government
insurance,
this is not a health care delivery system!!
This is about making rules about what's covered and what's not
covered, and then collecting the money, processing the claims,
and distributing it. Exactly the kinds of things that you
say government is good at.
You keep forgetting that this is not about either the government
or Aetna *doing* medicine.
> Government can pass laws to protect the people, but when it acts in its own
> self-interest, such as when it's *in business,* then it acts as corrupt as a
> large insurance company.
No, because a large insurance company is in it for the profits and
is accountable only to the shareholders, whereas the government
is accountable to the people, and is not measured on how much
profit it makes but on how much money it saves the public.
>
> "Either way they're telling me to do without my
> stress test, or go out on the street with a tin cup
> and hope that somebody will be kind enough to
> help pay for it."
>
> I am all for your survival, Rob. We should petition the government to
> "regulate" companies that refuse to pay reasonable requests for service. A
> stiff penalty imposed upon a few cases of obvious negligence would help
> change their tendency to turn down "questionable" claims.
It is very telling that you are railing against government
interference
in private enterprise, and yet you are proposing *more* government
interference that any of the proposals currently on the table are
proposing.
In any case, in all this discussion of how to do health care,
remember that my beef with Palin and the other sodomites
is about the blatant lies they tell, rather than with
any subtle economic analysis of their proposals versus ours.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
"Jesus didn't say don't help the sick and poor, because they might
have been irresponsible. He just said help them.
"You would let 10 people die rather than helping them because God
forbid one of the ten might have been "irresponsible"."
I don't think it's your business or the government's business to decide who
can climb a mountain. Heck, I climbed one or two myself, and would not have
wanted anybody to tell me I can't do it in my own national park!
Nevertheless, I might have wished a friend had advised me *not* to climb Mt.
Lacrosse in the Olympic Mountains, because I was not a trained climber, and
had no idea that scaling even a smaller mountain like that would be so
dangerous!
The point is, if people want to climb mountains or risk their lives, it is
not my job to prevent some needless deaths simply because I can do so by
banning *all* mountain climbing. People takes risks with their own health,
by their own free choice. Yes, we should cover people in emergency
situations, even when they've made bad choices. But these should not be the
means of equallizing opportunities among all classes. Rather, it should cost
people in the sense that they suffer some kind of negative reinforcment, so
that they don't do such a stupid thing again!
> Your company-sponsored health care plan should cover your need for 3 month
> visits on a different basis other than "dental." You have a health issue,
> diabetes, that would not be covered under an average dental plan.
"Any way, even though my company-sponsored health care plan
"should" cover my need, it doesn't."
And that's wrong. It requires some restructuring in the way insurance
companies do business, but not a comlete revamp of our system to make us
*all* pay into a universal system we don't believe in.
"My objection isn't to some subtle aspect of Palin's
political stance. It's to the log in her eye that lets
her just stand there and lie her head off about
death panels and killing grandma and all that
other stuff she spews, knowing it's false and misleading."
It can be misleading, but it can also be a means to bring a very important
issue to public attention. In Oregon there have been examples of this kind
of "death recommendation," or "death option" for the elderly. Do you really
want to be a burden to your relatives? Why not take a death capsule?
"...What the Democratic
proposal does is rather than sit in Aetna's boardroom and
micromanage Aetna's contracts, it says do whatever you want but
when someone eligible for the Insurance Exchange wants
to choose an insurer, they have a *choice* between Aetna
and a public option. In short, it's *more* like competition
and free choice than what you're proposing!!!"
We already talked about that. The "public option" is unfair government
competition with private companies. With unlimited financial resources,
government can act like the big grocery store that temporarily offers cheap
deals until the corner grocery store goes out of business. Then the prices
go back up. (I have a cousin who personally went through something like
this.) Have to go.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> "Jesus didn't say don't help the sick and poor, because they might
> have been irresponsible. He just said help them.
>
> "You would let 10 people die rather than helping them because God
> forbid one of the ten might have been "irresponsible"."
>
> I don't think it's your business or the government's business to decide who
> can climb a mountain.
You've changed the subject. The government is not telling you
that you can't climb mountains, and if some disgusting
Republican sodomite liar is telling you that, they are wrong.
They shall have their reward in the fire that never quenches.
I was saying that *Jesus* is telling you to help the poor and provide
insurance against illness. That is your duty, and if you fail to
do that then you too shall have your reward in the eternal fire.
As the missionaries like to say, I am telling you that you're headed
for a train wreck, and I don't understand why for the sake of
your own eternal soul, you're not desperately trying to save Obama's
proposed Christian health care.
> ... Rather, it should cost
> people in the sense that they suffer some kind of negative reinforcment, so
> that they don't do such a stupid thing again!
Yeah, don't do a stupid thing like get cancer, and if you do, we'll
bankrupt your family so that you won't make that mistake again. :(
That's Christian conservatives' understanding of Jesus' message,
right?
As I said, they shall have their reward.
>
> > Your company-sponsored health care plan should cover your need for 3 month
> > visits on a different basis other than "dental." You have a health issue,
> > diabetes, that would not be covered under an average dental plan.
>
> "Any way, even though my company-sponsored health care plan
> "should" cover my need, it doesn't."
>
> And that's wrong. It requires some restructuring in the way insurance
> companies do business, but not a comlete revamp of our system to make us
> *all* pay into a universal system we don't believe in.
This is somewhere between nonsensical and deliberately deceptive.
You know perfectly well that the public option does not require us all
pay
into it -- that's why it's called the public
****************option*******************!!!!
And demanding that Aetna pay for 3-month dental checkups is,
as I've told you, *****more***** socialistic than anything any
of the bills is proposing.
And, as a Christian, you *are* required to believe in Christian
healthcare,
since you want to follow Jesus and live with him in paradise. People
who join Palin and the republicans won't be able to do that. It's
your
****duty**** to help heal the sick even if you think their sickness is
due to their own fault, which most of the time it isn't.
>
> "My objection isn't to some subtle aspect of Palin's
> political stance. It's to the log in her eye that lets
> her just stand there and lie her head off about
> death panels and killing grandma and all that
> other stuff she spews, knowing it's false and misleading."
>
> It can be misleading, but it can also be a means to bring a very important
> issue to public attention.
No. Lying is never a valid means for bringing an important
issue to public attention. That is why I think Republicans
are going to be damned if there is an afterlife. To them, there is
always an excuse for telling lies. There were no
weapons in Iraq, but for Republicans that was OK,
because there might be some other advantage to
go there, so tell them that we definitely found them
and know where they are and they might even
be nuclear, so that the poor rabble won't ask too many
questions. There are no death panels, but that's
ok, go tell the poor rabble that there are, so they
will be frightened away from a bill that you don't
want passed for reasons that they're too naive
to understand. Yuck.
If there's a Christian-style afterlife, these guys are going
to be roasted in a slow eternal fire over boiling excrement.
> In Oregon there have been examples of this kind
> of "death recommendation," or "death option" for the elderly. Do you really
> want to be a burden to your relatives? Why not take a death capsule?
That's ridiculous. You are now pretending that the public option
has been passed in Oregon.
>
> "...What the Democratic
> proposal does is rather than sit in Aetna's boardroom and
> micromanage Aetna's contracts, it says do whatever you want but
> when someone eligible for the Insurance Exchange wants
> to choose an insurer, they have a *choice* between Aetna
> and a public option. In short, it's *more* like competition
> and free choice than what you're proposing!!!"
>
> We already talked about that. The "public option" is unfair government
> competition with private companies.
What's unfair about it? It prevents them from having a
stranglehold on prices.
> With unlimited financial resources,
> government can act like the big grocery store that temporarily offers cheap
> deals until the corner grocery store goes out of business.
Do you know how insane this sounds?
Aetna????
With an annual revenue of $31Billion, and a one-year growth of
12.1%????
You're comparing her to the blooming ****corner grocery store****???
Glad to see you have such compassion for "the little guy"!!!!
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "You would let 10 people die rather than helping them because God
> forbid one of the ten might have been "irresponsible"."
> I don't think it's your business or the government's business to decide
> who
> can climb a mountain.
"You've changed the subject. The government is not telling you
that you can't climb mountains...
I was saying that *Jesus* is telling you to help the poor and provide
insurance against illness...."
Last time I read the gospels I didn't see that. ;)
"As the missionaries like to say, I am telling you that you're headed
for a train wreck, and I don't understand why for the sake of
your own eternal soul, you're not desperately trying to save Obama's
proposed Christian health care."
Obama's proposed health care is in serious trouble precisely because it is
*not* very Christian. Dont' get me wrong. I think Obama is a Christian and
wants to provide for the needs of the poor anddisenfranchised. But he's
going about it the wrong way. He's troubling older people who are led to
believe their care will be reduced, to make room for the needs of younger
people and needy people with a future.
> And that's wrong. It requires some restructuring in the way insurance
> companies do business, but not a comlete revamp of our system to make us
> *all* pay into a universal system we don't believe in.
"This is somewhere between nonsensical and deliberately deceptive.
You know perfectly well that the public option does not require us all
pay
into it -- that's why it's called the public
****************option*******************!!!!"
On the contrary, a government-subsidized competitor to private health
insurance companies is subsidized by the taxpayer.
"And demanding that Aetna pay for 3-month dental checkups is,
as I've told you, *****more***** socialistic than anything any
of the bills is proposing."
What I'm saying is that if you're a diabetic and require out-of-the-ordinary
dental checkups, you should be covered under your medical insurance,
assuming that is part of your coverage. If you don't have that kind of
coverage, you should switch companies.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> "You've changed the subject. The government is not telling you
> that you can't climb mountains...
> I was saying that *Jesus* is telling you to help the poor and provide
> insurance against illness...."
>
> Last time I read the gospels I didn't see that. ;)
You should reread them then. He that has ears to hear, let him hear.
>
> "As the missionaries like to say, I am telling you that you're headed
> for a train wreck, and I don't understand why for the sake of
> your own eternal soul, you're not desperately trying to save Obama's
> proposed Christian health care."
>
> Obama's proposed health care is in serious trouble precisely because it is
> *not* very Christian.
Huh? It is not in trouble (except from crazies), and is likely to
pass.
And of course it is Christian; it is based on Christian principles.
> Dont' get me wrong. I think Obama is a Christian and
> wants to provide for the needs of the poor anddisenfranchised. But he's
> going about it the wrong way. He's troubling older people who are led to
> believe their care will be reduced, to make room for the needs of younger
> people and needy people with a future.
No. Sodomite liars, the same folks who scared you about WMDs,
are telling you that older people's care will be reduced.
I am an older person, and I am solidly behind the public option.
>
> > And that's wrong. It requires some restructuring in the way insurance
> > companies do business, but not a comlete revamp of our system to make us
> > *all* pay into a universal system we don't believe in.
>
> "This is somewhere between nonsensical and deliberately deceptive.
> You know perfectly well that the public option does not require us all
> pay
> into it -- that's why it's called the public
> ****************option*******************!!!!"
>
> On the contrary, a government-subsidized competitor to private health
> insurance companies is subsidized by the taxpayer.
You will either pay premiums to the public option, or to private
insurance.
>
> "And demanding that Aetna pay for 3-month dental checkups is,
> as I've told you, *****more***** socialistic than anything any
> of the bills is proposing."
>
> What I'm saying is that if you're a diabetic and require out-of-the-ordinary
> dental checkups, you should be covered under your medical insurance,
> assuming that is part of your coverage. If you don't have that kind of
> coverage, you should switch companies.
That's ridiculous. And it's not what you said before. Before you
said
that if I don't have that coverage, the government should force Aetna
to provide it, which I correctly pointed out was more socialistic
than anything Obama is proposing in the public option.
I'm sixty-blooming-three years old, a retired IBM computer scientist!
You're suggesting that I find some new job as a window-washer
or something, that might have an employer health care with
better provision for diabetics??????
People should switch jobs to get the health insurance they want???
That's insane.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Obama's proposed health care is in serious trouble precisely because it is
> *not* very Christian.
"Huh? It is not in trouble (except from crazies), and is likely to
pass."
There has been some kind of push to remove things like "the public option"
and Medicare funding for "end-of-life planning." That is what I call
"backing down," regrouping, or perhaps falling back into full retreat.
"And of course it is Christian; it is based on Christian principles."
Liberal theology is in retreat. Don't get me wrong. I think death
counselling is legitimate, along with provisions for some kind of "death
with dignity." I've long supported the right to withhold special means of
sustaining life, even though a condition is fatal and imminent. I just don't
believe it is right to take tax dollars, representing *all* Americans, and
empower hospital officials, medical boards, and doctors to offer important
end of life recommendations. Tax dollars have a strange way of corrupting
the moral basis for such things.
"I am an older person, and I am solidly behind the public option."
I won't hold that against you.
> On the contrary, a government-subsidized competitor to private health
> insurance companies is subsidized by the taxpayer.
"You will either pay premiums to the public option, or to private
insurance."
That wasn't the point. Competition is destroyed when one competitor has
unlimited tax dollars to allow it an *unfair advantage* when setting prices.
Once all competition is removed, the "public option" holds a monopoly and
sets policy for *everybody,* with the exception of the few private companies
reserved for the wealthy.
> What I'm saying is that if you're a diabetic and require
> out-of-the-ordinary
> dental checkups, you should be covered under your medical insurance,
> assuming that is part of your coverage. If you don't have that kind of
> coverage, you should switch companies.
"That's ridiculous...."
No, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I am personally familiar
with it. You have a reasonable case against Aetna, because they led you to
believe you were covered for your dental needs. And your dental needs are
based on a specific medical condition. Either they should change their
policy to specifically exclude a medical condition, or they should cover
you.
"I'm sixty-blooming-three years old, a retired IBM computer scientist!
You're suggesting that I find some new job as a window-washer
or something, that might have an employer health care with
better provision for diabetics??????"
No, I'm suggesting you fight Aetna, which will likely get you covered, and
also get them to be more specific in what they will cover. If you wait for
the "public option" to come along, you may "permanently retire" (die) before
you have a chance to get your teeth fixed. ;)
"People should switch jobs to get the health insurance they want???
That's insane."
No, that's a legitimate concern. I'm saying people should consider the
benefits associated with a particular job before they get that job. But if
the job changes the "goalposts," then the game has illegitimately been
played, and the rules were changed in mid-stream. In this case, freedom
exceeds the limits of justice, and government can legitimately step in to
apply new regulations, protecting people who cannot hope to defeat "giants."
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Obama's proposed health care is in serious trouble precisely because it is
> > *not* very Christian.
>
> "Huh? It is not in trouble (except from crazies), and is likely to
> pass."
>
> There has been some kind of push to remove things like "the public option"
> and Medicare funding for "end-of-life planning." That is what I call
> "backing down," regrouping, or perhaps falling back into full retreat.
No. The fact that sodomite Republicans oppose the public option
does not mean that we are retreating.
With your help, the public option will pass. Hopefully, we will
have your help in getting your representatives to stand firm behind
it.
>
> "And of course it is Christian; it is based on Christian principles."
>
> Liberal theology is in retreat. Don't get me wrong. I think death
> counselling is legitimate, along with provisions for some kind of "death
> with dignity."
End of life counselling is valuable, and has always been
around, but it has been used by evil Republicans as
a way of confusing their yahoo followers into thinking
that they're death panels.
> ... I just don't
> believe it is right to take tax dollars, representing *all* Americans, and
> empower hospital officials, medical boards, and doctors to offer important
> end of life recommendations.
It's called insurance, and people pay premiums to support it.
> Tax dollars have a strange way of corrupting
> the moral basis for such things.
No. Lying sodomite Republicans have a way of corrupting
the moral basis for their continued existence.
They shall have their reward, twisting slowly over the fires
where nothing but their worms shall turn, in the lakes
that never quench.
>
> "I am an older person, and I am solidly behind the public option."
>
> I won't hold that against you
It happens to all of us.
>
> > On the contrary, a government-subsidized competitor to private health
> > insurance companies is subsidized by the taxpayer.
>
> "You will either pay premiums to the public option, or to private
> insurance."
>
> That wasn't the point. Competition is destroyed when one competitor has
> unlimited tax dollars to allow it an *unfair advantage* when setting prices.
Not at all. It's the opposite. Competition is destroyed when there
are a few large powerful entities who can set prices and force
people to be insured with them.
...
>
> "That's ridiculous...."
>
> No, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I am personally familiar
> with it. You have a reasonable case against Aetna, because they led you to
> believe you were covered for your dental needs.
You're mixing up the dental plan and the payment for
preventative services.
I don't have a case against Aetna to force them to change their
policy.
> And your dental needs are
> based on a specific medical condition. Either they should change their
> policy to specifically exclude a medical condition, or they should cover
> you.
Your original proposal was that the government would be empowered
to force Aetna to cover me.
>
> "I'm sixty-blooming-three years old, a retired IBM computer scientist!
> You're suggesting that I find some new job as a window-washer
> or something, that might have an employer health care with
> better provision for diabetics??????"
>
> No, I'm suggesting you fight Aetna, which will likely get you covered,
No, because this is capitalism, and Aetna can do what it
bloody well pleases.
> and
> also get them to be more specific in what they will cover. If you wait for
> the "public option" to come along, you may "permanently retire" (die) before
> you have a chance to get your teeth fixed. ;)
I am glad you are opposed to delaying of the putting into effect
of the public option.
>
> "People should switch jobs to get the health insurance they want???
> That's insane."
>
> No, that's a legitimate concern. I'm saying people should consider the
> benefits associated with a particular job before they get that job.
I got my job with IBM in 1977, and at that time there was no
Aetna nonsense.
>But if
> the job changes the "goalposts," then the game has illegitimately been
> played, and the rules were changed in mid-stream.
So now you're saying that the government should forbid
IBM from changing the provisions of the health care
plans it offers employees????? That is ***still***
more socialistic than anything Obama is supporting for the public
option.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> There has been some kind of push to remove things like "the public option"
> and Medicare funding for "end-of-life planning." That is what I call
> "backing down," regrouping, or perhaps falling back into full retreat.
"No. The fact that sodomite Republicans oppose the public option
does not mean that we are retreating."
Rob, the *news* says that Obama's health care plan is in "retreat!"
Naturally, the "liberal media" is going to put a positive spin on Obama's
trouble with his health care proposals. MSNBC might want to portray Obama as
firm in his resolve to be "centrist" and "bipartison," ignoring all of the
"media hype" and "Republican bluster." But the truth is, the votes may not
be there for a "public option," and that means *Democrats* themselves have a
problem with it, along with their constiuents.
> Liberal theology is in retreat. Don't get me wrong. I think death
> counselling is legitimate, along with provisions for some kind of "death
> with dignity."
"End of life counselling is valuable..."
And should not be supported by government money, ie Medicare. The government
should not support any particular "end of life" agenda, particularly when
the "public option" is being put forward as a system of choice.
> "I am an older person, and I am solidly behind the public option."
> I won't hold that against you
"It happens to all of us."
Age does, and I'm not far behind you. But support for a "public option" does
*not* happen to all of us. ;)
> That wasn't the point. Competition is destroyed when one competitor has
> unlimited tax dollars to allow it an *unfair advantage* when setting
> prices.
"Not at all. It's the opposite. Competition is destroyed when there
are a few large powerful entities who can set prices and force
people to be insured with them."
It can happen either way. A monarch can rule with exclusive power, setting
the agenda, and controlling the propaganda. Or an oligarchy can do the same
thing. I would argue that the virtually-unlimited power of the federal
government, supported by tax dollars and armed with congressional
legislation, can dictate what health care plan we "need" and how it is
rationed. Traditionally, competition among insurance companies and different
coverages headed off this kind of exclusive propaganda.
> No, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I am personally familiar
> with it. You have a reasonable case against Aetna, because they led you to
> believe you were covered for your dental needs.
"You're mixing up the dental plan and the payment for
preventative services."
No, cleaning teeth and checking for cavities is necessary for preventative
services, and apparently, in your case you need this more often. If, due to
a medical condition, you need these services more often, it should fall
under a "medical" condition and have this coverage spelled out in your
insurance plan.
"I don't have a case against Aetna to force them to change their
policy."
Of course you do! You just mentioned the problem.
"No, because this is capitalism, and Aetna can do what it
bloody well pleases."
Last I saw, the federal government was in charge. Aetna can be regulated on
behalf of the American people by the authority given to Congress.
"So now you're saying that the government should forbid
IBM from changing the provisions of the health care
plans it offers employees?????..."
No, I'm saying Aetna should be prohibitted from offering *misleading* health
care coverages. This can be done by legislation enacted by Congress.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > There has been some kind of push to remove things like "the public option"
> > and Medicare funding for "end-of-life planning." That is what I call
> > "backing down," regrouping, or perhaps falling back into full retreat.
>
> "No. The fact that sodomite Republicans oppose the public option
> does not mean that we are retreating."
>
> Rob, the *news* says that Obama's health care plan is in "retreat!"
No it doesn't.
As I recall, you watch Fox, which is a totally different animal than
"the news".
It's being attacked, which is not the same as being in retreat.
An increasing number of members of Congress have actually
dug in their heels on the public option.
> Naturally, the "liberal media" is going to put a positive spin on Obama's
> trouble with his health care proposals.
Obama's plan is under attack, just as Clinton's plan was under attack.
That is a long way from saying that its supporters are retreating.
> MSNBC might want to portray Obama as
> firm in his resolve to be "centrist" and "bipartison," ignoring all of the
> "media hype" and "Republican bluster." But the truth is, the votes may not
> be there for a "public option," and that means *Democrats* themselves have a
> problem with it, along with their constiuents.
Democrats are spread over a wider political spectrum than Republicans.
For instance, some "blue dog" Democrats from very conservative
states have been opposed to the public option, especially if they
have a lot of support from the insurance industry. People like
Lieberman, who is in the pocket of the insurance industry, have
been opposed to it all along. Technically, he's not even
a Democrat. That doesn't mean the plan is in retreat.
Like people of good will everywhere, we have been following
the whip numbers for the public option, and they are improving,
not retreating.
> > Liberal theology is in retreat. Don't get me wrong. I think death
> > counselling is legitimate, along with provisions for some kind of "death
> > with dignity."
>
> "End of life counselling is valuable..."
>
> And should not be supported by government money, ie Medicare.
Why not? Why shouldn't my father-in-law have gotten hospice
care, including counselling, during the last days of his final
illness?
Would you have preferred that we stood out in traffic with a placard
and begged people in automobiles to pay us for that???
> The government
> should not support any particular "end of life" agenda, particularly when
> the "public option" is being put forward as a system of choice.
Why??? End of life counseling isn't an agenda -- it tells people
what their care options are.
I learned a lot about what's good and not good about morphine from
this.
>
> > "I am an older person, and I am solidly behind the public option."
> > I won't hold that against you
>
> "It happens to all of us."
>
> Age does, and I'm not far behind you. But support for a "public option" does
> *not* happen to all of us. ;)
I am praying for your soul, and that you will come over to support of
the public option in time.
>
> > That wasn't the point. Competition is destroyed when one competitor has
> > unlimited tax dollars to allow it an *unfair advantage* when setting
> > prices.
>
> "Not at all. It's the opposite. Competition is destroyed when there
> are a few large powerful entities who can set prices and force
> people to be insured with them."
>
> It can happen either way. A monarch can rule with exclusive power, setting
> the agenda, and controlling the propaganda. Or an oligarchy can do the same
> thing.
That's what we have in the insurance industry now. If you
were a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, you'd be for various
kinds of regulation. A public option is actually more
capitalistic than what TR proposed, since he was
a "trust-buster", and the PO just tries to increase the
competition level.
> I would argue that the virtually-unlimited power of the federal
> government, supported by tax dollars and armed with congressional
> legislation, can dictate what health care plan we "need" and how it is
> rationed.
No. Actually you have argued that the government should
dictate to Aetna what health plan they should offer.
The PO simply gives Aetna some competition. They can
offer the same plan they currently do, or they can
be incentivized (not forced) to change it.
> Traditionally, competition among insurance companies and different
> coverages headed off this kind of exclusive propaganda.
That's what the PO does: it increases competition.
>
> > No, this kind of thing happens all the time, and I am personally familiar
> > with it. You have a reasonable case against Aetna, because they led you to
> > believe you were covered for your dental needs.
>
> "You're mixing up the dental plan and the payment for
> preventative services."
>
> No, cleaning teeth and checking for cavities is necessary for preventative
> services, and apparently, in your case you need this more often. If, due to
> a medical condition, you need these services more often, it should fall
> under a "medical" condition and have this coverage spelled out in your
> insurance plan.
It is spelled out. It is spelled out that I only get it every 6
months.
You are proposing that the government either has the power
(it doesn't) or *should* be given the power to force Aetna
to change it to every 3 months. That is more socialistic
than anything Obama is proposing. It's more like the
Republican caricature of government health care, since
the government would really be dictating to Aetna what
their plans would look like.
>
> "I don't have a case against Aetna to force them to change their
> policy."
>
> Of course you do! You just mentioned the problem.
You don't seem to realize that just because Aetna is doing
a bad thing, it is their right as a private company to do whatever
they want.
>
> "No, because this is capitalism, and Aetna can do what it
> bloody well pleases."
>
> Last I saw, the federal government was in charge.
No!!!
> Aetna can be regulated on
> behalf of the American people by the authority given to Congress.
As I said, if such a regulation happened, it would be more
socialistic than anything Obama is proposing. I still
find it ironic that you are a Republican and yet you
favor *more* government socialized control of
medicine than I do.
>
> "So now you're saying that the government should forbid
> IBM from changing the provisions of the health care
> plans it offers employees?????..."
>
> No, I'm saying Aetna should be prohibitted from offering *misleading* health
> care coverages. This can be done by legislation enacted by Congress.
Interesting. You support the government dictating to Aetna
things like how many dental cleanings they should pay for,
and yet you oppose the much less socialistic public option.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Rob, the *news* says that Obama's health care plan is in "retreat!"
"No it doesn't.
As I recall, you watch Fox, which is a totally different animal than
"the news"."
I read MSNBC news as well on the internet, and watch *all* of the cable news
programs at one time or another. I just *prefer* Fox, because it's "fair and
balanced" treatment errs on the side of conservatism. It *has* to do this
because so much of our media has in the past erred on the side of
liberalism.
"It's being attacked, which is not the same as being in retreat."
It is in "retreat," no matter how you play with the semantics. The "public
option" is not dead yet, but it's on artificial life support. The town
meetings discussing health care do not suggest we're ready as a people to
just stupidly adopt European approaches to health care. Rather, we're
concerned, overall, with the loss of our own identity as Americans, and with
the "takeover" the government has been leading us to. In the end we'll be
absorbed by European interests, finding ourselves soldiers of Western
society, rather than Americans. (I'm really discussing two issues here--not
just one. There is the issue of catering to European interests, and there is
also the issue of socialization. Both can be accomplished by a strong
central government that wants to sacrifice American interests for *world*
interests.)
"An increasing number of members of Congress have actually
dug in their heels on the public option."
Led by and pressured by Far Left extremists within the Democratic Party.
> And should not be supported by government money, ie Medicare.
"Why not? Why shouldn't my father-in-law have gotten hospice
care, including counselling, during the last days of his final
illness?"
End-of-life counselling can be dangerous, especially when we're concerned
with the aged. They are sensitive to the "burden" they are to the young, and
do not think as well as they used to. We cannot just make it subject to
government concerns that often don't care about individuals in the least.
"Why??? End of life counseling isn't an agenda -- it tells people
what their care options are."
I believe under the control of government, it all ends up a matter of
"policy." That is, it becomes concerned with an "agenda," with saving money,
with sacrificing one program for another program, all the while keeping the
bureaucracy alive and well.
"I am praying for your soul, and that you will come over to support of
the public option in time."
I am praying you come to know Jesus Christ is a revelation of your God, and
come into a personal relationship with God in respect to his testimony.
Things like "public options" are like arguments between communism and
capitalism. They both have their "Christian" interests, but not everything
in both of them are in the least "Christian."
"That's what we have in the insurance industry now. If you
were a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, you'd be for various
kinds of regulation. A public option is actually more
capitalistic than what TR proposed, since he was
a "trust-buster", and the PO just tries to increase the
competition level."
I am very much for regulation, and I very much like Teddy Roosevelt. I don't
think the "public option" is evil--I just have profound concerns about where
it would take our health insurance options. I think the result would be a
dilution of both freedom and quality of care. Government subsidized health
insurance would surely push out all but private health insurance for the
very rich. That would be the time to treat people like numbers, and arrange
them in an orderly way to prop up the government forever at the expense of
programs "we cannot afford."
randy
Rob Strom
> I read MSNBC news as well on the internet, and watch *all* of the cable news
> programs at one time or another. I just *prefer* Fox, because it's "fair and
> balanced" treatment errs on the side of conservatism.
You're amusing :)
...
>
> It is in "retreat," no matter how you play with the semantics.
I use the ordinary English semantics.
If you want to consider 77% popular support and an increasing number
of representatives of this populace coming out in favor of it
"retreat",
go for it.
I'm glad the public plan is "retreating" in the right direction
though :)
...
>
> "An increasing number of members of Congress have actually
> dug in their heels on the public option."
>
> Led by and pressured by Far Left extremists within the Democratic Party.
There are no Far Left extremists. The furthest left is Dennis
Kucinich,
and he was actually somewhat opposed to the public option;
he thought anything short of medicare-for-all was not going to
save enough money.
>
> > And should not be supported by government money, ie Medicare.
>
> "Why not? Why shouldn't my father-in-law have gotten hospice
> care, including counselling, during the last days of his final
> illness?"
>
> End-of-life counselling can be dangerous,
Ignorance is better????????????????????????
> especially when we're concerned
> with the aged. They are sensitive to the "burden" they are to the young, and
> do not think as well as they used to. We cannot just make it subject to
> government concerns that often don't care about individuals in the least.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The people who go to end-of-life
counselling are often the families of the aged, and if you don't
want to know how hospice works and what are the tradeoffs
with giving morphine versus not giving morphine, go right ahead.
I'm not listening to that nonsense any more.
Your Jesus said the truth should set you free, and if you think
that was a plea to stay ignorant, then you shall have your reward,
but it's not my interpretation.
Don't bring up this nonsense about
how telling people about morphine is
government propaganda to me again.
It sounds as crazy as the recent complaints
of the sodomites about how the President
giving a speech to schoolkids about
working hard and staying in school is
indoctrination. Funny that similar speeches
were given during Reagan and Bush,
and these disgusting damned-into-hell
hypocrite sodomites never said boo of complaint
then.
...
> "I am praying for your soul, and that you will come over to support of
> the public option in time."
>
> I am praying you come to know Jesus Christ is a revelation of your God,
From these discussions, it is obvious that I know Jesus far
far better than you do. I will continue to pray for you.
...
>
> "That's what we have in the insurance industry now. If you
> were a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, you'd be for various
> kinds of regulation. A public option is actually more
> capitalistic than what TR proposed, since he was
> a "trust-buster", and the PO just tries to increase the
> competition level."
>
> I am very much for regulation, and I very much like Teddy Roosevelt. I don't
> think the "public option" is evil--I just have profound concerns about where
> it would take our health insurance options. I think the result would be a
> dilution of both freedom and quality of care.
Sorry, but saving money doesn't dilute freedom.
It's a stupid abstraction to redefine freedom as meaning
that you're subject to the choices Aetna is offering
you as opposed to the choices a government plan is
offering you. Real freedom means not being
so bankrupt that you are forced into a "free"
choice between food and the medicine you need to live.
Sorry. This stuff makes me angry.
The stupid hell-bound sodomite republicans are making
up lies about how the government plan is killing grandma,
while they are actually being selfish hypocrite "I've
got mine so screw you" disgusting bastards forcing
people into bankruptcy. THEY are killing grandma,
and if Christianity is true, they are going to be spending
eternity swing on a rope over pools of boiling excrement for it.
> Government subsidized health
> insurance would surely push out all but private health insurance for the
> very rich.
> That would be the time to treat people like numbers, and arrange
> them in an orderly way to prop up the government forever at the expense of
> programs "we cannot afford."
That's a bunch of nonsensical drivel, and you only can repeat
it because you listen to fox rather than people who really analyze
it. I cannot believe that you are really as callous as the
sodomites want you to be.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> If you want to consider 77% popular support and an increasing number
> of representatives of this populace coming out in favor of it
> "retreat",
> go for it.
77% support for what?
This is from August 18th...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/18/2033674.aspx
> There are no Far Left extremists. The furthest left is Dennis
> Kucinich,
> and he was actually somewhat opposed to the public option;
> he thought anything short of medicare-for-all was not going to
> save enough money.
I define the "Far Left" as those bordering on socialists who want a
government takeover of our lives, an intermediary between our leaders and
what they feel is in the public's and in the world's best interests. On the
other side are those who believe Americans should maintain their own
identity and independence, keeping the government front and center as
regulators of special interests and big business interests.
>> End-of-life counselling can be dangerous,
> Ignorance is better????????????????????????
You believe government-backed insurance plans are the *only means* this
knowledge can be achieved?????
> From these discussions, it is obvious that I know Jesus far
> far better than you do. I will continue to pray for you.
You don't know how silly that sounds to a real Christian. ;)
The rest of your arguments consist of, "I'm angry," and "that's nonsense."
You don't have to call Republicans evil, Fox garbage, and Palin a liar to
make your argument. Your anger seems to be clouding your sensibilities.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > If you want to consider 77% popular support and an increasing number
> > of representatives of this populace coming out in favor of it
> > "retreat",
> > go for it.
>
> 77% support for what?
A health care bill that gives individuals a choice of a public plan as
well
as private plans.
Go to this link:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
It is a Survey USA poll. Look at question 2. Here is the exact
wording:
"In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give
people
a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government
and a private plan for their health insurance--
extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at
all important?"
Notice that sodomites and others have written alternative wordings
that
eliminate the word "choice", which changes the whole question being
asked.
Now go down to the results. Add up the numbers for the "favorable"
answers, which I hope you'll agree would be "extremely important" and
"quite important". You will get 58% extremely important and 19% quite
important for a total of 77%.
Even if you only count "extremely important" as a favorable response
that is still a considerable majority for what is supposedly a
controversial bill.
...
>
> I define the "Far Left" as those bordering on socialists who want a
> government takeover of our lives,
that is total rhetorical overstatement.
My wife is on medicare, which is a single-payer plan,
and hence more socialistic than the Obama proposal
of a *choice* of plans, and we don't believe that
there is a "government takeover of our lives".
...
> >> End-of-life counselling can be dangerous,
> > Ignorance is better????????????????????????
>
> You believe government-backed insurance plans are the *only means* this
> knowledge can be achieved?????
I believe that you are wrong in saying that end-of-life counselling
is so dangerous that you want insurance to stop covering it.
>
> > From these discussions, it is obvious that I know Jesus far
> > far better than you do. I will continue to pray for you.
>
> You don't know how silly that sounds to a real Christian. ;)
I'm not sure how many real Christians you actually know, given
that you are getting your entire world-view from Fox News.
> The rest of your arguments consist of, "I'm angry," and "that's nonsense."
> You don't have to call Republicans evil, Fox garbage, and Palin a liar to
> make your argument. Your anger seems to be clouding your sensibilities.
I *am* angry, but my anger is not clouding my sensibilities,
since Palin *is* a liar, having deliberately said that Obama's
proposals institute "death panels" that would decide whether
the elderly were sufficiently worthy to get care, when they
institute nothing of the sort. So it's false, she knew it, and
hence a lie. Republicans have been evil about everything
from torture to lying about health care to telling people
to disrupt health care townhalls, to whipping up anger
about even an uncontroversial speech of Obama's to
schoolchildren, when Reagan gave a speech to
schoolchildren in 1988 about how wonderful *tax cuts*
were, and Republicans not only didn't rush to the streets
to protest, they applauded it!!!!
I don't get angry about Republicans having different
political philosophies and opinions. I get angry
about the lying, the hypocrisy, and the double standards.
Just as Jesus did.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> > If you want to consider 77% popular support and an increasing number
> > of representatives of this populace coming out in favor of it
> > "retreat",
> > go for it.
> 77% support for what?
"A health care bill that gives individuals a choice of a public plan as
well
as private plans."
Did you read the link I gave you? Do you really think the public can shift
that quickly over a short time? If so, do we really know what the "public"
wants?...
From Aug 18, 2009: "NBC POLL: PLURALITY OPPOSES PUBLIC OPTION ....And
according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality --
oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it."
But of course, just prior to that it seems a plurality supported it...
"That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it
and 44% were opposed."
"Go to this link:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
It is a Survey USA poll. Look at question 2. Here is the exact
wording:
"In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give
people
a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government
and a private plan for their health insurance--
extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at
all important?" "
The problem with this is, the question can be understood from two different
viewpoints. It can assume that a public option is *already* on the table,
and that the public wants an alternative to the public option being forced
*exclusively* upon us all!
Or, the public could be wanting *all options* equally, ignoring the fact a
public option cannot be viewed equally. My argument is that the public
option *would be* favored by the government, necessarily, and *reduce*
alternative options! This would mean that a plurality of voters actually
wish for something *they cannot have.* That is, they wish to have equal
choices, but in view of the fact a public option could never be equal, the
public could never have what they say they want!
"I *am* angry, but my anger is not clouding my sensibilities,
since Palin *is* a liar...."
I am no longer going to contribute to this thread, as named, since it is
based on hosility directed towards Sarah Palin. I'm not interested in adding
to that kind of hatred.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > > If you want to consider 77% popular support and an increasing number
> > > of representatives of this populace coming out in favor of it
> > > "retreat",
> > > go for it.
> > 77% support for what?
>
> "A health care bill that gives individuals a choice of a public plan as
> well
> as private plans."
>
> Did you read the link I gave you? Do you really think the public can shift
> that quickly over a short time? If so, do we really know what the "public"
> wants?...
The link doesn't mention the wording of the question, whereas my link
does.
If the wording doesn't include the word "choice", it is misleading
and that's why some sodomite polls have shown different results
from the neutral polls.
...
> "Go to this link:http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-...
> It is a Survey USA poll. Look at question 2. Here is the exact
> wording:
> "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give
> people
> a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government
> and a private plan for their health insurance--
> extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at
> all important?" "
>
> The problem with this is, the question can be understood from two different
> viewpoints. It can assume that a public option is *already* on the table,
> and that the public wants an alternative to the public option being forced
> *exclusively* upon us all!
There is no public option being forced exclusively on us all.
That is why it is called a public OPTION.
The question as written makes it clear it is talking about exactly
what is being proposed and that the sodomites reject:
namely giving people a choice where the options
include both private insurance and a public plan.
>
> Or, the public could be wanting *all options* equally, ignoring the fact a
> public option cannot be viewed equally. My argument is that the public
> option *would be* favored by the government, necessarily, and *reduce*
> alternative options! This would mean that a plurality of voters actually
> wish for something *they cannot have.* That is, they wish to have equal
> choices, but in view of the fact a public option could never be equal, the
> public could never have what they say they want!
>
> "I *am* angry, but my anger is not clouding my sensibilities,
> since Palin *is* a liar...."
>
> I am no longer going to contribute to this thread, as named, since it is
> based on hosility directed towards Sarah Palin. I'm not interested in adding
> to that kind of hatred.
I don't hate her at all, and in fact I keep her in my prayers
all the time, in the hope that she renounces her
wickedness and returns to the ways of Jesus and the Bible.
You, as a Christian, should keep her in your prayers too.
--
Rob Strom
Emma
>
>
>I am no longer going to contribute to this thread, as named, since it is
>based on hosility directed towards Sarah Palin. I'm not interested in adding
>to that kind of hatred.
I don't understand why you said that, Randy, because
politicians shouldn't be beyond criticism.
There is nothing wrong with hostility towards
politicians IMO.
Over here, we all rightfully *hate* politicians!
They are the lowest of the low.
(...Apart from Boris Johnson -- Mayor of London -- who
is gorgeous and certainly beyond criticism, as far
as I am concerned. But that's just me!!)
Sarah Palin, by becoming a politician, makes herself
a fair target.
Isn't it sort of tyrannical to demand no criticism?
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Did you read the link I gave you? Do you really think the public can shift
> that quickly over a short time? If so, do we really know what the "public"
> wants?...
"The link doesn't mention the wording of the question, whereas my link
does.
If the wording doesn't include the word "choice", it is misleading
and that's why some sodomite polls have shown different results
from the neutral polls."
"Choice" is a catchword for liberals who assume, rightfully, that everybody
wants a "choice." But that is entirely misleading, if the "choice" leads to
a curtailment of freedom. The poll I gave zeroes in on the "public option,"
which apparently the public did not want or trust, at some point. Your poll
changes the "landscape," and makes it appear the vote is going either for
free choice or against it. Obviously, people are going to opt for choice.
At some point in our lives we have to decide if there is a universal
morality that is higher than human choice. For example, if someone came up
to me and asked if people should have a free choice whether to kill
Hispanics, I would say I am all for free choice, but not for someone else's
choice to kill a Hispanic. I surrender free choice when it comes to someone
else's choice to murder someone. Even if it is not *my* choice, I must
surrender my neighbor's choice as well, because the right to life is higher
than the choice to murder.
Some people will say that abortion must be decided by the individual, who
must decide, first of all, if abortion is murder, and second of all, if he
or she is to commit to the abortion. But taking the life of an unborn child
is just that, whether it is called murder or not, and the right of a person
to practise abortion is not higher than the right of the unborn child to
live.
"There is no public option being forced exclusively on us all.
That is why it is called a public OPTION."
You falsely say that I misconstrue this, saying there are no other options
with the public option. That isn't true in the least. What I've been saying
is that the "public option" discriminates against other options, and holds
an ace, inasmuch as it is supported unfairly with taxpayers' money. The
result of a public option is unfair competition, forcing insurance companies
to reduce premiums in order to compete with an advantaged player. This could
force insurance companies into bankruptcy--not just bring down prices and
force insurance companies to play fair!
randy
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>I am no longer going to contribute to this thread, as named, since it is
>>based on hosility directed towards Sarah Palin. I'm not interested in
>>adding
>>to that kind of hatred.
> I don't understand why you said that, Randy, because
> politicians shouldn't be beyond criticism.
> There is nothing wrong with hostility towards
> politicians IMO.
I say it, Emma, because I live over here and listen to politicians give
speeches. They use the "Sarah Palin lie" as part of their political strategy
to disenfranchise her, and to cause her audience to no longer give credence
to her speeches. The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin helped to effect a
major change in the way the public perceives Obama's public health plan.
Whereas before Americans felt very positive, overall, with regard to Obama's
proposals, now people are wary that there will be some sort of rationing
under his health care plan, and the possibility of "death panels" cannot be
ignored.
Somebody is going to decide how people are counselled on end-of-life issues.
There, in Great Britain, you might have more of a residual Christian
cultural backdrop, allowing you to counsel people in humane ways. But here
in the U.S., with all of our immigrant mixes, it does not take much for the
landscape to change, and for counselling the aged to turn into
recommendations of suicide. Here in my state of Washington euthenasia is now
legal, along with our neighbor Oregon. This is an incredibly fast change in
the morality that once existed here! People are rightfully concerned over
these kinds of quick changes!
This is a link to a questionaire put out in 1996 before Washington State
approved euthenasia...
http://imsdd.meb.uni-bonn.de/cgi-bin/mycite?ExtRef=MEDL/96178757
"Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in Washington State: patient
requests and physician responses....
In the past year, 12% of responding physicians received one or more explicit
requests for physician-assisted suicide, and 4% received one or more
requests for euthanasia. These physicians provided 207 cases descriptions.
The diagnoses most often associated with requests were cancer, neurological
disease, and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). The patient
concerns most often perceived by physicians were worries about loss of
control, being a burden, being dependent on others for personal care, and
loss of dignity. Physicians provided assistance more often to patients with
physical symptoms. Physicians infrequently sought advice from colleagues. Of
156 patients who requested physician-assisted suicide, 38 (24%) received
prescriptions, and 21 of these died as a result. Of 58 patients who
requested euthanasia, 14 (24%) received parenteral medication and died."
> Over here, we all rightfully *hate* politicians!
> They are the lowest of the low.
> (...Apart from Boris Johnson -- Mayor of London -- who
> is gorgeous and certainly beyond criticism, as far
> as I am concerned. But that's just me!!)
;)
> Sarah Palin, by becoming a politician, makes herself
> a fair target.
> Isn't it sort of tyrannical to demand no criticism?
No, they have the right to criticize, and I have the right to decide when
criticism goes "over the top." Stereotyping is okay, but misrepresentation
is not. Criticism of policies is right, but misrepresenting those policies
and those arguments is wrong, particularly when it is accompanied by
character assasination.
randy
Rob Strom
>
> "The link doesn't mention the wording of the question, whereas my link
> does.
> If the wording doesn't include the word "choice", it is misleading
> and that's why some sodomite polls have shown different results
> from the neutral polls."
>
> "Choice" is a catchword for liberals who assume, rightfully, that everybody
> wants a "choice." But that is entirely misleading, if the "choice" leads to
> a curtailment of freedom.
It obviously doesn't lead to a curtailment of freedom, since there
is now a larger set of things to choose from.
> The poll I gave zeroes in on the "public option,"
> which apparently the public did not want or trust, at some point.
No. You didn't give the wording of "your poll". But if
it didn't say "choice", then it could, especially given
that so many people listen only to sodomites,
sound like "forcing you into a government run program",
which is just what last night's rebuttal speaker said.
In short, that poll would be asking about a distorted
version of the public option. The poll I quoted
specifically and correctly described the public option,
namely that you could go to an exchange and
choose a plan from a set including private plans
and at least one publically administered plan.
> Your poll
> changes the "landscape," and makes it appear the vote is going either for
> free choice or against it. Obviously, people are going to opt for choice.
Not always. This poll was asking specifically whether
or not they wanted the choice to include a public plan.
>
> At some point in our lives we have to decide if there is a universal
> morality that is higher than human choice.
There is. That's why I support a single-payer plan, but
as a political compromise, I'll accept a choice that
includes a public plan.
The universal morality is the thing that your sodomite friends
reject!!
The universal morality says that the poor and sick are *entitled*
to your help.
...
>
> Some people will say that abortion must be decided by the individual, who
> must decide, first of all, if abortion is murder, and second of all, if he
> or she is to commit to the abortion. But taking the life of an unborn child
> is just that, whether it is called murder or not, and the right of a person
> to practise abortion is not higher than the right of the unborn child to
> live.
Under Jewish law, when the mother's life is threatened,
it's actually a *duty* to perform an abortion.
You will have to yield to that, since as I have pointed out
many times, we have a revealed religion and you do not.
>
> "There is no public option being forced exclusively on us all.
> That is why it is called a public OPTION."
>
> You falsely say that I misconstrue this, saying there are no other options
> with the public option. That isn't true in the least. What I've been saying
> is that the "public option" discriminates against other options, and holds
> an ace, inasmuch as it is supported unfairly with taxpayers' money.
No, it is not in the slightest bit unfair. The private plans
are oligopolies, and they have the right under private
enterprise to jack up premiums to an unhealthy extent,
and *that* is what is unfair. The public option is a
way of using competition to control that, which is
in the spirit of Roosevelt's control of trusts, without
the need to institute lawsuits against each specific
private plan that is acting unfairly (and to create
laws to define each anti-competitive act that
constitutes unfairness).
> The
> result of a public option is unfair competition, forcing insurance companies
> to reduce premiums in order to compete with an advantaged player. This could
> force insurance companies into bankruptcy--not just bring down prices and
> force insurance companies to play fair!
It won't. That's a sodomite scare tactic.
Anyway, you have heard the President's speech, and he laid everything
out clearly and convincingly. He promised he will call out
the opposition on their lies. Nobody will be able to call it
"government-run healthcare" again. Or say there are death panels.
Or say that it covers abortions. Or illegal aliens. Or euthanasia.
Sodomites, take notice: God is watching.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Emma"
> randy
>
> >>I am no longer going to contribute to this thread, as named, since it is
> >>based on hosility directed towards Sarah Palin. I'm not interested in
> >>adding
> >>to that kind of hatred.
> > I don't understand why you said that, Randy, because
> > politicians shouldn't be beyond criticism.
> > There is nothing wrong with hostility towards
> > politicians IMO.
>
> I say it, Emma, because I live over here and listen to politicians give
> speeches. They use the "Sarah Palin lie" as part of their political strategy
> to disenfranchise her, and to cause her audience to no longer give credence
> to her speeches.
She doesn't deserve any credence, because what she says are lies.
> The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin helped to effect a
> major change in the way the public perceives Obama's public health plan.
And here is where you think lying is OK, if it has the political
effect you want.
I am saying it is IMMORAL to effect a change if the way you
are effecting a change is by telling lies.
> Whereas before Americans felt very positive, overall, with regard to Obama's
> proposals, now people are wary that there will be some sort of rationing
> under his health care plan, and the possibility of "death panels" cannot be
> ignored.
That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
(according to others).
>
> Somebody is going to decide how people are counselled on end-of-life issues.
> There, in Great Britain, you might have more of a residual Christian
> cultural backdrop, allowing you to counsel people in humane ways. But here
> in the U.S., with all of our immigrant mixes, it does not take much for the
> landscape to change, and for counselling the aged to turn into
> recommendations of suicide.
That is a vile, xenophobic statement, and I hope you retract it.
It implies Christian culture is superior, that immigrant culture
is not Christian (which actually in the US it mostly is), and
that other cultures would turn into recommendations of suicide.
> Here in my state of Washington euthenasia is now
> legal, along with our neighbor Oregon. This is an incredibly fast change in
> the morality that once existed here! People are rightfully concerned over
> these kinds of quick changes!
>
> This is a link to a questionaire put out in 1996 before Washington State
> approved euthenasia...
There is absolutely NOTHING in the Democratic supported
healthcare plans that will lead to euthanasia.
You're just arguing that sometime in the future, anything
tainted with Democratic cooties might lead to it.
I might as well say, don't vote Republican because
sooner or later they will set up an AVO-like
secret police that will torture you.
...
>
> > Over here, we all rightfully *hate* politicians!
> > They are the lowest of the low.
> > (...Apart from Boris Johnson -- Mayor of London -- who
> > is gorgeous and certainly beyond criticism, as far
> > as I am concerned. But that's just me!!)
>
> ;)
>
> > Sarah Palin, by becoming a politician, makes herself
> > a fair target.
> > Isn't it sort of tyrannical to demand no criticism?
>
> No, they have the right to criticize, and I have the right to decide when
> criticism goes "over the top." Stereotyping is okay, but misrepresentation
> is not.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say misrepresentation is not okay, and yet you
defend Sarah Palin????????????????????????
> Criticism of policies is right, but misrepresenting those policies
> and those arguments is wrong, particularly when it is accompanied by
> character assasination.
It is exactly because of misrepresentation and character assassination
that I attack Sarah Palin and the deathers.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "Choice" is a catchword for liberals who assume, rightfully, that
> everybody
> wants a "choice." But that is entirely misleading, if the "choice" leads
> to
> a curtailment of freedom.
"It obviously doesn't lead to a curtailment of freedom, since there
is now a larger set of things to choose from."
Let's say you have the choice to commit adultery against your wife, commit
murder, steal from your employer, and trash your deity, now that's a lot of
choices isn't it? But it isn't the kind of freedom I espouse, because it
actually violates the freedoms of others.
In the case of the "public option," it limits the freedoms of insurance
companies, as well as taxpayers who may not want to cough up more money to
pay for people who may not deserve coverage. If you give people something
for free who absolutely do not deserve it, you're going to get walked on.
And I think the American people are about to be walked on (under this
proposal).
"........The poll I quoted
specifically and correctly described the public option,
namely that you could go to an exchange and
choose a plan from a set including private plans
and at least one publically administered plan."
Assuming that nobody has a choice over whether there is a "public option,"
the public would obviously want more than just that one option, yes. But
many others might not want that "public option" at all.
"...This poll was asking specifically whether
or not they wanted the choice to include a public plan."
Assuming the "public plan" does not eat up all other plans, it might work
very well. But if in fact this "public plan" competes unfairly with all
other plans, nobody should want it. I'm not entirely opposed to a "public
option," if it is forced to compete fairly with all other proposals. I'm
just not convinced that the government is going to play fair, or is even
competent to do business in this way. Look at how the government handles the
post office, or the military, or even Social Security, and you'll understand
my concerns...
"Under Jewish law, when the mother's life is threatened,
it's actually a *duty* to perform an abortion."
Under those circumstances, I can understand.
> "There is no public option being forced exclusively on us all.
> That is why it is called a public OPTION."
Words do not make the reality. Otherwise, the "Christian Science" religion
would be both "Christian" and "Science," and I don't believe they are.
"No, it is not in the slightest bit unfair. The private plans
are oligopolies, and they have the right under private
enterprise to jack up premiums to an unhealthy extent,
and *that* is what is unfair. The public option is a
way of using competition to control that, which is
in the spirit of Roosevelt's control of trusts, without
the need to institute lawsuits against each specific
private plan that is acting unfairly (and to create
laws to define each anti-competitive act that
constitutes unfairness)."
I believe in Roosevelt's desire to control trusts, and I believe we have the
need to *regulate* powerful insurance companies, who have a corner on the
market. We don't need to have government get into business in order to
regulate them.
"Anyway, you have heard the President's speech, and he laid everything
out clearly and convincingly...."
Just a few details to work out, he said. ;)
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> I say it, Emma, because I live over here and listen to politicians give
> speeches. They use the "Sarah Palin lie" as part of their political
> strategy
> to disenfranchise her, and to cause her audience to no longer give
> credence
> to her speeches.
"She doesn't deserve any credence, because what she says are lies."
I rest my case.
"That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
(according to others)."
Sounds like that's *your* eschatology, Rob! You do not have Christian
eschatology. You sound like some medieval Catholic pope wanting to burn
heretics.
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > "Choice" is a catchword for liberals who assume, rightfully, that
> > everybody
> > wants a "choice." But that is entirely misleading, if the "choice" leads
> > to
> > a curtailment of freedom.
>
> "It obviously doesn't lead to a curtailment of freedom, since there
> is now a larger set of things to choose from."
>
> Let's say you have the choice to commit adultery against your wife, commit
> murder, steal from your employer, and trash your deity, now that's a lot of
> choices isn't it? But it isn't the kind of freedom I espouse, because it
> actually violates the freedoms of others.
You have switched from arguing that the public option "curtails
freedom"
to arguing that it creates a kind of freedom that you don't like.
But your analogies are flawed, since the public option isn't like
murder or adultery. It is just a way of lowering costs by
providing competition to oligopolies that gouge the public.
Morally, you might consider regulating oligopolies to
be a diminution of the oligopolies' "freedom to gouge",
but I don't believe that morally oligopolies should *have*
freedom to gouge, when the gouging means that
more and more people will either be unable to afford
health insurance or will have to make major sacrifices to get it.
My son and daughter-in-law, small business owners,
faced an over 30% increase in insurance premiums
and were forced to drop prescription drug coverage.
I don't consider that taking away the oligopolies'
so-called "freedom" to make their prescription drug
coverage unaffordable as a "violation". Sorry.
>
> In the case of the "public option," it limits the freedoms of insurance
> companies,
Tough.
> as well as taxpayers who may not want to cough up more money to
> pay for people who may not deserve coverage.
Tough. I'm getting angrier about this.
I don't give a tinker's damn about whether some other taxpayer
doesn't think that my son and daughter-in-law and new baby
"deserve" coverage.
People like these greedy taxpayers are disgusting sodomites
who will get their own reward in the bowels of hell, anyway
(if Christianity is true).
They're violating the Jewish Bible, and the commandments
of Jesus. They're only 23% of the country. So screw them.
I don't give a hoot for their "freedom" to be greedy.
> If you give people something
> for free who absolutely do not deserve it, you're going to get walked on.
> And I think the American people are about to be walked on (under this
> proposal).
Tough. I have 77% of the people behind me, and let the other 23%
rant and rave and throw tea parties. We'll just marginalize them
and get on with the business of America.
>
> "........The poll I quoted
> specifically and correctly described the public option,
> namely that you could go to an exchange and
> choose a plan from a set including private plans
> and at least one publically administered plan."
>
> Assuming that nobody has a choice over whether there is a "public option,"
> the public would obviously want more than just that one option, yes. But
> many others might not want that "public option" at all.
I don't care whether they want it at all.
Having an option doesn't mean *you* have to take the option, of
course.
But the sodomites don't want me and my children to have it, either.
That's because they're evil, non-Christian people. What
you folks would call "demon-led". I don't care about
their blooming feelings.
I just want to make sure that enough people in Congress
vote against them so that their disgusting will doesn't
prevail. They can hold tea parties in hell, for all I care,
and complain to Jesus that it's just not fair.
>
> "...This poll was asking specifically whether
> or not they wanted the choice to include a public plan."
>
> Assuming the "public plan" does not eat up all other plans, it might work
> very well. But if in fact this "public plan" competes unfairly with all
> other plans, nobody should want it.
It doesn't compete unfairly.
> I'm not entirely opposed to a "public
> option," if it is forced to compete fairly with all other proposals. I'm
> just not convinced that the government is going to play fair, or is even
> competent to do business in this way.
I am not convinced that the people who drove my children's
insurance premiums up by over 30% play fair, so I'm happy
to have the government come and regulate it.
> Look at how the government handles the
> post office, or the military, or even Social Security, and you'll understand
> my concerns...
It's better than having bands of thieves do it.
...
>
> > "There is no public option being forced exclusively on us all.
> > That is why it is called a public OPTION."
>
> Words do not make the reality. Otherwise, the "Christian Science" religion
> would be both "Christian" and "Science," and I don't believe they are.
Just because something can have the name Christian Science
and be neither doesn't mean that everything called Christian
isn't, and in this case the public option is both an
option and publically run, so the statement that it's
not forced and public is true.
>
> "No, it is not in the slightest bit unfair. The private plans
> are oligopolies, and they have the right under private
> enterprise to jack up premiums to an unhealthy extent,
> and *that* is what is unfair. The public option is a
> way of using competition to control that, which is
> in the spirit of Roosevelt's control of trusts, without
> the need to institute lawsuits against each specific
> private plan that is acting unfairly (and to create
> laws to define each anti-competitive act that
> constitutes unfairness)."
>
> I believe in Roosevelt's desire to control trusts, and I believe we have the
> need to *regulate* powerful insurance companies, who have a corner on the
> market. We don't need to have government get into business in order to
> regulate them.
It's actually, as I've said, less socialistic for the
government to set up a plan that competes with them
than for them to butt into their boards of directors
and tell them how to make decisions.
>
> "Anyway, you have heard the President's speech, and he laid everything
> out clearly and convincingly...."
>
> Just a few details to work out, he said. ;)
Exactly. You should be on the phone with your representatives.
You should tell them that you're a Christian and ignoring
the poor and sick is a sin, and that it's unconscionable
that hard-working small-business owners like my son and
daughter-in-law have to deal with oppressive premium increases,
and that your Lord and Savior has commanded us to help them.
They're not going to be even getting handouts; they're
just going to be in a world where the insurance companies
will be in a more competitive environment. Tell them
to work out those details before the end of the year, or
else you'll be voting them out come next election.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
>> Let's say you have the choice to commit adultery against your wife,
>> commit
>> murder, steal from your employer, and trash your deity, now that's a lot
>> of
>> choices isn't it? But it isn't the kind of freedom I espouse, because it
>> actually violates the freedoms of others.
> You have switched from arguing that the public option "curtails
> freedom"
> to arguing that it creates a kind of freedom that you don't like.
Say it anyway you like. The public option reduces public freedoms by putting
government in charge of our health care. This limits our choices to choices
imposed on us by the government, or by health boards it chooses to install.
Freedom continues under the president's proposals. But anytime government
presides over our "freedoms," our freedoms are reduced, and options are
controlled by fewer people. I believe that under our system, the government
serves the people--not the other way around.
Anyway, I know a lot of people feel this way, because of the recent
"liberty" march on Washington DC. Call them "rednecks," or "disgruntled
people," if you like. They represent people who fear the loss of control to
a growing government.
> But your analogies are flawed, since the public option isn't like
> murder or adultery. It is just a way of lowering costs by
> providing competition to oligopolies that gouge the public....
It is an "alleged" effort to lower costs. In actuality it's an attempt by
government to manage things better for the good of the public. But as we all
know, the bigger the government bureaucracy grows, the more danger we are in
in terms of tyranny.
I'm not opposed to government efforts to manage things for people, because
people cannot always effectively do things for themselves. People are up
against all kinds of powerful interests, and government can well act on
behalf of the people against special interests.
On the other hand, when government goes beyond the role of regulator to
become a kind of dictator as to what kind of health care people can have, or
what is realistically being offered to them, then government goes out of
character and trespasses into the territory of business and public freedoms.
Socialism is not for me, sorry.
> Morally, you might consider regulating oligopolies to
> be a diminution of the oligopolies' "freedom to gouge",
> but I don't believe that morally oligopolies should *have*
> freedom to gouge, when the gouging means that
> more and more people will either be unable to afford
> health insurance or will have to make major sacrifices to get it.
"Freedom to gouge" is also one of my "not-preferred freedoms." However,
there is little difference between the freedom of oligopolies to gouge and
the freedom of government to gouge. When government over-regulates, it takes
excessive taxes from people and gives the money to others. This can be
legitimate at times, when we all agree there is need for a joint effort. But
in more discretionary affairs, government intrusion is easily as abusive as
oligopolies.
> My son and daughter-in-law, small business owners,
> faced an over 30% increase in insurance premiums
> and were forced to drop prescription drug coverage.
> I don't consider that taking away the oligopolies'
> so-called "freedom" to make their prescription drug
> coverage unaffordable as a "violation". Sorry.
I believe in reducing taxes on the small business, precisely so that they
can afford to get the best employees, offering them whatever they need to
pay for their own health insurance. When employees are part of a big
company, the employees themselves can bargain for some kind of joint effort
to get cheaper health insurance. The only time the government should get
involved is when there is injustice of some kind, some bullying by large
special interests. As long as there are good alternatives, large interests
cannot corner the market and become monopolies.
The "public option" is not a good alternative, because it can underbid all
other options. It is, in and of itself, a kind of "monopoly." I really don't
care what vocabulary is used, or what is said will still be available under
this plan. A public option is not just one option--it is *the* option. And
it removes, ultimately, other fair and reasonable options.
> I don't give a tinker's damn about whether some other taxpayer
> doesn't think that my son and daughter-in-law and new baby
> "deserve" coverage.
That makes you a kind of tyrant, to think you have a right to take *my*
money, and give it to yourself and to your own. It is one thing if *we both
agree* to do this. It is an entirely different thing to think you have the
right to march right up to my house, or to my bank, and *demand* my money!
Get angry, but I call that "theft!" I don't care if you use government to
get the job done. You are just an accomplice in a theft!
> Tough. I have 77% of the people behind me, and let the other 23%
> rant and rave and throw tea parties. We'll just marginalize them
> and get on with the business of America.
You don't have even 50% of the country behind you. Obama's popularity has
waned over just this issue. And I expect soon it may dip below 50%--just
like that "awful" Bush, when the other political party determined to
capitalize on his weaknesses. ;)
> It doesn't compete unfairly.
Perhaps not in theory...
> I am not convinced that the people who drove my children's
> insurance premiums up by over 30% play fair, so I'm happy
> to have the government come and regulate it.
If the public option is the only way, fine. I just don't happen to believe
that, at this point.
> It's better than having bands of thieves do it.
So you think you're the best "thief" to rely on? You're the best one to
handle my money? I suppose it all boils down to our politics, doesn't it? I
just want to err on the side of freedom. Those people who are struggling
deserve help, but it doesn't have to happen through the public option!
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > I say it, Emma, because I live over here and listen to politicians give
> > speeches. They use the "Sarah Palin lie" as part of their political
> > strategy
> > to disenfranchise her, and to cause her audience to no longer give
> > credence
> > to her speeches.
>
> "She doesn't deserve any credence, because what she says are lies."
>
> I rest my case.
If a person tells lies repeatedly, they shouldn't be believed!
Why do you dispute that???
You think we should keep listening to liars?
>
> "That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
> hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
> sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
> (according to others)."
>
> Sounds like that's *your* eschatology, Rob!
Not at all! I don't believe there is an afterlife, as you know.
*If Christianity is true* (which I don't think), then SP
is in deep trouble. Details are not clear. It might
be a rope, it might be a hook. It might be
hot sulfur, or it might be boiling excrement.
It depends upon the particular details of
the eschatology.
> You do not have Christian
> eschatology. You sound like some medieval Catholic pope wanting to burn
> heretics.
But I am much kinder than the Inquisitors!
I don't *want* to burn SP. I don't want *God* to sentence
SP to burning in the afterlife (although I think that
according to Christianity that is what will happen to her).
I just want her to be scorned and marginalized and her viewpoints
outvoted in Congress, that's all!
Why do you make me out to be some kind of monster, when
it's the other side that are the monsters???
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> >> Let's say you have the choice to commit adultery against your wife,
> >> commit
> >> murder, steal from your employer, and trash your deity, now that's a lot
> >> of
> >> choices isn't it? But it isn't the kind of freedom I espouse, because it
> >> actually violates the freedoms of others.
> > You have switched from arguing that the public option "curtails
> > freedom"
> > to arguing that it creates a kind of freedom that you don't like.
>
> Say it anyway you like. The public option reduces public freedoms by putting
> government in charge of our health care.
That's false. It's a rightwing talking point, but repeating it
doesn't
make it true.
Doctors remain in charge of your health care.
Insurance is a way to make sure that more of the time, you don't
have to skip the medically right thing to do because of not affording
it.
> This limits our choices to choices
> imposed on us by the government, or by health boards it chooses to install.
> Freedom continues under the president's proposals. But anytime government
> presides over our "freedoms," our freedoms are reduced, and options are
> controlled by fewer people.
No. Instead of options being controlled by Aetna and
a handful of insurance companies, they are controlled
by the People of the United States of America.
> I believe that under our system, the government
> serves the people--not the other way around.
Yup. One way to serve the people is to make
insurance more affordable, and covering
a broader range of situations, and regulating
the markets so that the total cost is lower.
>
> Anyway, I know a lot of people feel this way, because of the recent
> "liberty" march on Washington DC. Call them "rednecks," or "disgruntled
> people," if you like. They represent people who fear the loss of control to
> a growing government.
Fooey. There were only about 70,000 of them, despite the
lies told by their organizers, and they're being deliberately
manipulated by people who don't have the people's
interest at heart. Just like Joe the "Plumber" was used
to advocate tax policies that would in fact work
*against* the interest of the average plumber!
>
> > But your analogies are flawed, since the public option isn't like
> > murder or adultery. It is just a way of lowering costs by
> > providing competition to oligopolies that gouge the public....
>
> It is an "alleged" effort to lower costs. In actuality it's an attempt by
> government to manage things better for the good of the public. But as we all
> know, the bigger the government bureaucracy grows, the more danger we are in
> in terms of tyranny.
That's why you conservatives were leading the charge in anti-war
protests under Bush, right? :)
That's why your buddies at Fox News were all over Bush's
tyrannical and unconstitutional policies, right? :)
That's why everyone was extolling the French for opposing
big government-led wars, right? So much so that they called
French fries "freedom fries" after the French, right?
>
> I'm not opposed to government efforts to manage things for people, because
> people cannot always effectively do things for themselves. People are up
> against all kinds of powerful interests, and government can well act on
> behalf of the people against special interests.
>
> On the other hand, when government goes beyond the role of regulator to
> become a kind of dictator as to what kind of health care people can have,
Some dictator. Don't make people uninsurable because of having
pre-existing conditions.
> or
> what is realistically being offered to them, then government goes out of
> character and trespasses into the territory of business and public freedoms.
> Socialism is not for me, sorry.
I wish you would stop repeating the sodomist lies like
comparing the Obama plan to socialism when the two
have nothing in common. It makes you sound sympathetic
to sodomist interests.
...
>
> "Freedom to gouge" is also one of my "not-preferred freedoms." However,
> there is little difference between the freedom of oligopolies to gouge and
> the freedom of government to gouge.
There is an enormous difference.
> When government over-regulates, it takes
> excessive taxes from people and gives the money to others.
No. First of all this plan *isn't* raising anybody's taxes.
(Although
I would support restoring the tax levels to pre-Bush levels.)
And second of all, it's not giving money to others for
some personal enrichment purpose; it's only *insurance*.
So instead of paying an executive at Aetna an
obscene bonus which he has a perfect right under
current law to keep, or to spend on ANYTHING HE
DAMN WELL PLEASES to (that would be real gouging),
they're using it to pay the costs of somebody who
gets sick and needs to pay the legitimate medical
costs of an operation (that would not be gouging).
Remember what a trouble it was trying to take bonuses
back from these people who ran big companies into
the ground? It was too late -- they started treating
it as contractually owed.
> This can be
> legitimate at times, when we all agree there is need for a joint effort. But
> in more discretionary affairs, government intrusion is easily as abusive as
> oligopolies.
No. In this case, it means that instead of some bloody
insurance executive getting a bonus for kicking people
off insurance and making a profit for his insurance company,
and using it to take a island cruise, it means that my
daughter-in-law doesn't have to drop **prescription drug**
coverage, so in case my granddaughter needs *medicine*,
she doesn't have to do without!!!!
...
>
> I believe in reducing taxes on the small business, precisely so that they
> can afford to get the best employees, offering them whatever they need to
> pay for their own health insurance.
This is an S-corporation. Whatever they make, it passes through
the company. Aggregate health costs should be less and shouldn't
be going up at 8 times the cost of inflation.
...
> The only time the government should get
> involved is when there is injustice of some kind, some bullying by large
> special interests. As long as there are good alternatives, large interests
> cannot corner the market and become monopolies.
The public option *is* the good alternative.
>
> The "public option" is not a good alternative, because it can underbid all
> other options. It is, in and of itself, a kind of "monopoly."
No it isn't. In any case, it's not a profit making entity.
It won't be allowed to raise premiums to augment prices.
> I really don't
> care what vocabulary is used, or what is said will still be available under
> this plan. A public option is not just one option--it is *the* option.
no it isn't -- it is one option.
> And
> it removes, ultimately, other fair and reasonable options.
If they were fair and reasonable, they'd be chosen.
>
> > I don't give a tinker's damn about whether some other taxpayer
> > doesn't think that my son and daughter-in-law and new baby
> > "deserve" coverage.
>
> That makes you a kind of tyrant, to think you have a right to take *my*
> money, and give it to yourself and to your own.
Stop using that vocabulary.
You sound like Bob Dole or John McCain.
The fruits of labor are *not* "my money". The earth is
THE LORD's. You, as a Bible believer, should
appreciate that.
Some of that money that you call "my money"
actually belongs to the poor and the sick,
which means that your failure to voluntarily
give it to sick people is a sin on your part.
Too many people fail to give it. It's a
prisoner's dilemma situation -- people
don't want to be the only "sucker" to
give their money away. That's why
the government legitimately should
make sure that these pools of money
exist.
> It is one thing if *we both
> agree* to do this. It is an entirely different thing to think you have the
> right to march right up to my house, or to my bank, and *demand* my money!
It's not your money. It belongs morally to those who need it.
If you don't give it away voluntarily, then of course the government
has the right to take it from you!!!
>
> Get angry, but I call that "theft!" I don't care if you use government to
> get the job done. You are just an accomplice in a theft!
Go call it theft, but the Constitution says the government can
tax for the general welfare, and the Bible says you're
required to give to the poor. So I'm just applying
the constitution plus Biblical morality.
I don't care what the sodomites think.
...
> You don't have even 50% of the country behind you. Obama's popularity has
> waned over just this issue. And I expect soon it may dip below 50%--just
> like that "awful" Bush, when the other political party determined to
> capitalize on his weaknesses. ;)
Obama does what is morally right, whether it is popular or not.
He still has 77% of the country behind him on the public option.
Remember, some of his opposition comes from the left, who
wants a single-payer system or a system like Europe.
...
> > I am not convinced that the people who drove my children's
> > insurance premiums up by over 30% play fair, so I'm happy
> > to have the government come and regulate it.
>
> If the public option is the only way, fine. I just don't happen to believe
> that, at this point.
You should come around to believing it. I will pray for you.
I wouldn't want Christianity to be true and God forbid
you get interrogated by the Divine Judges about why
you didn't believe in it?
>
> > It's better than having bands of thieves do it.
>
> So you think you're the best "thief" to rely on?
I'm not a thief. You're sounding like the nutty rightwing.
> You're the best one to
> handle my money? I suppose it all boils down to our politics, doesn't it? I
> just want to err on the side of freedom.
That's what freedom is.
You are not going to be able to persuade me that my son, daughter-in-
law,
and granddaughter doing without medicine so that some goddamn
bloody executive at Aetna can have another yacht constitutes
"freedom".
You Conservative Christians keep voting against Jesus and against
the interests of the vast majority of your congregation.
> Those people who are struggling
> deserve help, but it doesn't have to happen through the public option!
Stop repeating republican talking point of how it can all be fixed
through tax cuts and tort reform, and realize that this is the
best politically possible way to do it. Single-payer is a better
way, but it doesn't have the votes, so this is what it is going
to have to be.
--
Rob Strom
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Say it anyway you like. The public option reduces public freedoms by
> putting
> government in charge of our health care.
"That's false. It's a rightwing talking point, but repeating it doesn't
make it true."
Since when has the government managed well in the area of business? The U.S.
postal service, the U.S. military, the Social Security Administration--how
about FEMA? And I'm not in the least sure that we will get back taxpayers'
money that has been invested in the automobile industry, or "tarp" money
invested into financial institutions. And Obama's "stimulus" money has
hardly even been spent. The result has been a complete collapse of
confidence in Obama's management skills, and great concern about the
increase in government power. That's why we're getting these "tea party"
gatherings, and that's why FOX ratings are going up, while some of the more
liberal news companies are going down in ratings. (They are extremely late
in covering any "negative" news coverage of Obama, whether it's his
continuing involvement in Afghanistan or his friends in ACORN.)
"Doctors remain in charge of your health care."
If they are not reimbursed at higher rates, the quality of their care will
go down. And if government policies determine what *should* be covered,
recommendations for certain kinds of care will be offered less. In other
words, care will be *rationed.*
"Insurance is a way to make sure that more of the time, you don't
have to skip the medically right thing to do because of not affording
it."
The quality of insurance coverage is determined by the companies' policies.
These policies may not encourage that the "right thing be done," whether it
is a federally-backed insurance system or a private insurance system. It is
the amount of money allocated that determines the quality of the care
provided for.
"No. Instead of options being controlled by Aetna and
a handful of insurance companies, they are controlled
by the People of the United States of America."
That is so naive. The government does not always act in concert with the
will of the people. The government is installed by a majority vote (or by
their representatives), but that does not guarantee that all the people will
be represented, that a majority of support among the people will continue,
or that the majority of the people support the president on *all issues.*
> Anyway, I know a lot of people feel this way, because of the recent
> "liberty" march on Washington DC. Call them "rednecks," or "disgruntled
> people," if you like. They represent people who fear the loss of control
> to
> a growing government.
"Fooey. There were only about 70,000 of them, despite the
lies told by their organizers, and they're being deliberately
manipulated by people who don't have the people's
interest at heart. Just like Joe the "Plumber" was used
to advocate tax policies that would in fact work
*against* the interest of the average plumber!"
I don't deny there is a strong political component in these marches.
However, many of the marchers are libertarians or independents--not just
Republicans. And there were likely a good deal more than 70,000, according
to reports "on the ground" by neutral parties. The 70,000 figure was, I
believe, a fire department estimate designed to serve a possible
emergency--not an exact figure. At any rate, that does not reflect the
large-scale interest across the country, reflected in the rise of interest
in FOX news, and reflected in polls showing the President's falling
popularity.
> It is an "alleged" effort to lower costs. In actuality it's an attempt by
> government to manage things better for the good of the public. But as we
> all
> know, the bigger the government bureaucracy grows, the more danger we are
> in
> in terms of tyranny.
"That's why you conservatives were leading the charge in anti-war
protests under Bush, right? :)"
Not all conservatives were "in bed" with Bush on the war. Nevertheless,
conservatives felt the need to be strong against terrorist threats in the
Moslem world. There is a world-wide war against terrorism, and not just
isolated flareups like a bushfire that needs to be put out with some kind of
"police action."
"That's why your buddies at Fox News were all over Bush's
tyrannical and unconstitutional policies, right? :)"
Lots of people at Fox reported conservative disenchantment with Bush
policies.
"That's why everyone was extolling the French for opposing
big government-led wars, right? So much so that they called
French fries "freedom fries" after the French, right?"
The French were among those who fell to Hitler, remember? If they are
successful with their government programs, maybe it's because they've
sacrificed other investments that guarantee their safety? (You might say the
same for Japan.) If you ask me, they can have back their Statue of Liberty!
Or maybe we should give them a better model of their own--in the nude?
> On the other hand, when government goes beyond the role of regulator to
> become a kind of dictator as to what kind of health care people can have,
"Some dictator. Don't make people uninsurable because of having
pre-existing conditions.'
We all agree that needs to be addressed.
"I wish you would stop repeating the sodomist lies like
comparing the Obama plan to socialism when the two
have nothing in common. It makes you sound sympathetic
to sodomist interests."
I realize Obama is not recommending actual socialism. The point is,
government seems to be getting more powerful under Obama, and that threatens
private companies and individual rights. It makes the individual citizen
subservient to *what the government thinks* is best for the country as a
whole. (Incidently, this concern over Big Government existed under the Bush
administration also.)
"No. First of all this plan *isn't* raising anybody's taxes.
(Although
I would support restoring the tax levels to pre-Bush levels.)"
You've just lost the interest of most businesses in America. And its
businesses that employ people. Why do you think we have nearly 10%
unemployment? Remember, Obama said that if we pass his Stimulus Plan we
would not go above 8%? ;)
"And second of all, it's not giving money to others for
some personal enrichment purpose; it's only *insurance*.
So instead of paying an executive at Aetna an
obscene bonus which he has a perfect right under
current law to keep, or to spend on ANYTHING HE
DAMN WELL PLEASES to (that would be real gouging),
they're using it to pay the costs of somebody who
gets sick and needs to pay the legitimate medical
costs of an operation (that would not be gouging)."
I'm sorry, but the profit motive is what drives business in this country. I
agree that regulation is needed when business intersects with public
interests. But the government should not arbitrarily meddle in the affairs
of private businesses unless there is a compelling interest. In this case,
there is a compelling interest, but not to the extent government has to
begin competing with businesses. Regulations are sufficent to guide business
in where it can profit, without affecting the public welfare in a negative
way. After all, business benefits from the public welfare as well, and has
the same interests the government has in the ability of the public to
purchase insurance.
"It's not your money. It belongs morally to those who need it.
If you don't give it away voluntarily, then of course the government
has the right to take it from you!!!"
You're an absolute tyrant. Get off my property, and stop covetting money
I've earned! The Bible commands you to take your eyes off your neighbors'
lands and property, and to stop wanting it!
randy
Rob Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > Say it anyway you like. The public option reduces public freedoms by
> > putting
> > government in charge of our health care.
>
> "That's false. It's a rightwing talking point, but repeating it doesn't
> make it true."
>
> Since when has the government managed well in the area of business? The U.S.
> postal service, the U.S. military, the Social Security Administration--
Most people love social security and medicare.
They may not be ideal, but they like it better than Aetna.
...
>
> "Doctors remain in charge of your health care."
>
> If they are not reimbursed at higher rates, the quality of their care will
> go down. And if government policies determine what *should* be covered,
> recommendations for certain kinds of care will be offered less. In other
> words, care will be *rationed.*
No. Care is rationed NOW.
This is a proposal that will REDUCE the amount of rationing
by lowering the costs.
>
> "Insurance is a way to make sure that more of the time, you don't
> have to skip the medically right thing to do because of not affording
> it."
>
> The quality of insurance coverage is determined by the companies' policies.
> These policies may not encourage that the "right thing be done," whether it
> is a federally-backed insurance system or a private insurance system. It is
> the amount of money allocated that determines the quality of the care
> provided for.
A profit-based insurance company has the incentive to serve
their stockholder's interests, which is not necessarily the same as
the interests
of the sick people that it is their moral obligation to be helping.
>
> "No. Instead of options being controlled by Aetna and
> a handful of insurance companies, they are controlled
> by the People of the United States of America."
>
> That is so naive.
I have been around for over 63 years, so no.
> The government does not always act in concert with the
> will of the people.
Yes, that is true. The people didn't know that the government
was committing torture and spying on their neighbors.
But a new day has dawned, and it is morning in America again.
Formerly it was "mourning in America".
>
> The government is installed by a majority vote (or by
> their representatives), but that does not guarantee that all the people will
> be represented, that a majority of support among the people will continue,
> or that the majority of the people support the president on *all issues.*
They won't. But they support the President on *this issue*
that we're discussing.
By about 77-23.
>
> > Anyway, I know a lot of people feel this way, because of the recent
> > "liberty" march on Washington DC. Call them "rednecks," or "disgruntled
> > people," if you like. They represent people who fear the loss of control
> > to
> > a growing government.
>
> "Fooey. There were only about 70,000 of them, despite the
> lies told by their organizers, and they're being deliberately
> manipulated by people who don't have the people's
> interest at heart. Just like Joe the "Plumber" was used
> to advocate tax policies that would in fact work
> *against* the interest of the average plumber!"
>
> I don't deny there is a strong political component in these marches.
> However, many of the marchers are libertarians or independents--not just
> Republicans.
The basic premise of libertarianism is wrong, too.
It is based on Ayn Rand and other people who extol
selfishness and think we're not our brothers' keepers.
They also don't understand the math of the prisoner's
dilemma and other game-theoretic situations that
call for regulation. As a Christian, even though
you don't understand the math, you should reject that premise.
> And there were likely a good deal more than 70,000, according
> to reports "on the ground" by neutral parties. The 70,000 figure was, I
> believe, a fire department estimate designed to serve a possible
> emergency--not an exact figure.
It was the best available estimate by a neutral party. I don't
think you can say that the fire department is a
partisan liberal organization.
> At any rate, that does not reflect the
> large-scale interest across the country, reflected in the rise of interest
> in FOX news, and reflected in polls showing the President's falling
> popularity.
FOX "news" is entertainment.
The polls still show support for the President. It's lower
than the period of ecstasy following the election, but
it still supports the President.
>
> > It is an "alleged" effort to lower costs. In actuality it's an attempt by
> > government to manage things better for the good of the public. But as we
> > all
> > know, the bigger the government bureaucracy grows, the more danger we are
> > in
> > in terms of tyranny.
>
> "That's why you conservatives were leading the charge in anti-war
> protests under Bush, right? :)"
>
> Not all conservatives were "in bed" with Bush on the war.
The ones who weren't kept their mouths shut and their
teabags in their houses.
...
>
> "That's why your buddies at Fox News were all over Bush's
> tyrannical and unconstitutional policies, right? :)"
>
> Lots of people at Fox reported conservative disenchantment with Bush
> policies.
No. Not to the heightened level of anger you're seeing now from the
sodomites.
>
> "That's why everyone was extolling the French for opposing
> big government-led wars, right? So much so that they called
> French fries "freedom fries" after the French, right?"
>
> The French were among those who fell to Hitler, remember?
The French were among those who were *right* about
Iraq WMDs, when we were horribly and tragically
wrong to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths
> If they are
> successful with their government programs, maybe it's because they've
> sacrificed other investments that guarantee their safety? (You might say the
> same for Japan.) If you ask me, they can have back their Statue of Liberty!
> Or maybe we should give them a better model of their own--in the nude?
That is so obscene and disgusting we'll pretend you didn't say it.
The fact is that the French were right and the Fox people were
*not* encouraging us to listen to the French. Tant pis.
...
>
> "I wish you would stop repeating the sodomist lies like
> comparing the Obama plan to socialism when the two
> have nothing in common. It makes you sound sympathetic
> to sodomist interests."
>
> I realize Obama is not recommending actual socialism.
Then REBUKE the people who are trying to get people
to oppose him by spreading the lie that he is.
> The point is,
> government seems to be getting more powerful under Obama,
No, it isn't. We're not torturing people and engaging in
warrantless wiretapes.
> ... It makes the individual citizen
> subservient to *what the government thinks* is best for the country as a
> whole. (Incidently, this concern over Big Government existed under the Bush
> administration also.)
Very very silently. Everybody sucked up to Bush and bashed
his opponents as unpatriotic. Listen to Ann Coulter.
Michelle Bachmann. ...
>
> "No. First of all this plan *isn't* raising anybody's taxes.
> (Although
> I would support restoring the tax levels to pre-Bush levels.)"
>
> You've just lost the interest of most businesses in America. And its
> businesses that employ people. Why do you think we have nearly 10%
> unemployment? Remember, Obama said that if we pass his Stimulus Plan we
> would not go above 8%? ;)
You haven't found the place where he said this, and we don't have 10%
unemployment because we restored the tax levels to pre-Bush,
because actually, we HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.
We have high unemployment because of the credit crunch
created by Bush's disgusting greedy unregulated friends
that he wanted to deregulate even more.
>
> "And second of all, it's not giving money to others for
> some personal enrichment purpose; it's only *insurance*.
> So instead of paying an executive at Aetna an
> obscene bonus which he has a perfect right under
> current law to keep, or to spend on ANYTHING HE
> DAMN WELL PLEASES to (that would be real gouging),
> they're using it to pay the costs of somebody who
> gets sick and needs to pay the legitimate medical
> costs of an operation (that would not be gouging)."
>
> I'm sorry, but the profit motive is what drives business in this country.
This is insurance, not production. Insurance companies
don't build a single tractor, cure a single disease,
invent a drug, put together a single car.
We have capitalism to encourage people to take
risks to innovate.
Insurance is different: it's a math problem. We want
to reduce the standard deviation of the risks of getting
sick. We don't want to do that by making the
working population take risks. We instead want
to increase the pool of money to reduce the
variance of the risk, and we also want to reduce
the total cost of the risk (by doing more prevention
and reducing duplication), and reduce the overhead
(by lowering the profits of the middlemen).
> I
> agree that regulation is needed when business intersects with public
> interests. But the government should not arbitrarily meddle in the affairs
> of private businesses unless there is a compelling interest. In this case,
> there is a compelling interest, but not to the extent government has to
> begin competing with businesses.
They are competing not with productive business, but with
*insurance companies*. Insurance companies, as I've told
you, don't actually produce anything. They simply pool
risks, so if everybody has a .1% chance of paying $1,000,000
and a 99.9% chance of paying $1,000, they keep a pool
of $2,000,000 per 1000 people by premiums of $2,000 for everybody.
Then (statistically) they will pay out for each 1000 people
$1,000,000 to one of them, $999,000 to the other 999,
and keep $1000 to cover expenses. Beyond that,
they want to make it easier to cover preventative care
so that the .1% chance of paying $1,000,000 is reduced
to a .085 chance, even if there are more preventative
doctors' visits.
Profit-driven insurance companies don't always have
the incentive to do that.
A single payer plan is the *best* way to do this, but
as a *********************gracious compromise********************
the left is willing to give that up in favor of keeping
the private insurance companies around and keeping
them honest by having a public option to compete with them.
But the sodomites, in bed with the insurance companies,
just say no to everything. They then put stumbling
blocks before the blind by fooling the redneck
idiots into thinking that this is socialism and
death panels and euthanasia. They use racism
to inflame the suspicions the rednecks already
have about Obama. They then get these morons
to parade in the streets.
Dick Armey, for instance, is a notorious
ex-pharma lobbyist who has created
an organization called Freedom Works
that funnels rich donations into organization
of allegedly "grassroots" teabagging demonstrations.
These guys are going to be in such deep doodoo
when the rapture or the afterlife or the judgement
day or whatever it is comes, that there will
be wailing and gnashing ot teeth! (That's
assuming Christianity is true. I don't believe
it is, and I'm sure Dick Armey doesn't either
because he doesn't give a second thought
to what he's doing.)
> Regulations are sufficent to guide business
> in where it can profit, without affecting the public welfare in a negative
> way.
Regulation, as I've repeatedly said,
is *more* socialistic than a public option.
It would mean having government officials
second-guess every boardroom decision from
Aetna and create a big bureaucracy to decide
whether to sue them over this or that provision
of their insurance plans.
...
> "It's not your money. It belongs morally to those who need it.
> If you don't give it away voluntarily, then of course the government
> has the right to take it from you!!!"
>
> You're an absolute tyrant. Get off my property,
It's not yours; it's God's.
> and stop covetting money
I'm not coveting it. The public option doesn't give it to me.
It doesn't even give it to the government, except for the
people who actually *choose* to pay premiums into it.
But stop repeating that nonsense that it's your money
and taxation is theft. The Constitution says
the government has a right to collect taxes
and the Bible says that you have a duty
to give "your" money to the needy.
You have been listening so much to conservatives
that you have forgotten to listen to God and Jesus!
If you keep saying "my money" "my property", you
are giving me Daffy Duck morality, not Christian morality.
--
Rob Strom
Zev
> On Sep 17, 12:29 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > "Rob Strom"
> > randy
> Most people love social security and medicare.
>
> They may not be ideal, but they like it better than Aetna.
1) It's easier to cheat social security and medicare
2) They think *someone else* pays for it
3) They don't know the system is tottering toward bankruptcy
> We have high unemployment because of the credit crunch
> created by Bush's disgusting greedy unregulated friends
> that he wanted to deregulate even more.
It's because of the collapse of sub-prime.
Have you heard of NINJA mortgages?
It's: No Income, No Job, No Assets.
The following may be from a professor of economics.
I no nothing about him, and I don't know
how authoritative his opinions are.
I would guess that he's no less knowledgable than you are.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086299/posts
quote:
The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the “subprime”
housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is
the
direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced
banks to
make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is
the
1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make
loans to
low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call
“communities
of color” that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic
criteria.
The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who
supported
the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support
with
government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from.
These
included various “neighborhood organizations,” as they like to call
themselves, such as “ACORN” (Association of Community Organizations
for
Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA
loans
have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much
certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten
years
ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the
first
twenty years of the Act.
So-called “community groups” like ACORN benefit themselves from the
CRA
through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is
enforced
by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of
the
Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger,
branch
expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by
any of
these four bureaucracies if a CRA “protest” is issued by a “community
group.” This can cost banks great sums of money, and the “community
groups”
understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this
leverage
to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising
to
make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.
A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade
for
pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his
organization, the “Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.” He
once
boasted to the New York Times that he had “won” loan commitments
totaling
$3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the
Fleet
Financial Group. And that is just one “community group” operating in
one
city – Boston.
Don’t expect to read about this in the “mainstream media,” however,
which
generally views groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor,
laws like
the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for
the
subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage
brokers. Encouraged by such reporting, the odious Senator Charles
Schumer of
New York has promised federal legislation that will reign in these
miscreants
September 6, 2007
Thomas J. DiLorenzo professor of economics at Loyola College in
Maryland and
the author of The Real Lincoln:
endquote
Rob Strom
> On Sep 17, 9:20 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:29 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > > "Rob Strom"
> > > randy
> > Most people love social security and medicare.
>
> > They may not be ideal, but they like it better than Aetna.
>
> 1) It's easier to cheat social security and medicare
> 2) They think *someone else* pays for it
> 3) They don't know the system is tottering toward bankruptcy
>
1) only because the definition of cheating is more precisely defined.
It's also easier for Aetna to cheat you.
2) don't understand
3) it isn't, we could have put them on a sound footing
but chose to do the iraq war instead.
...
>
> It's because of the collapse of sub-prime.
> Have you heard of NINJA mortgages?
> It's: No Income, No Job, No Assets.
>
> The following may be from a professor of economics.
> I no nothing about him, and I don't know
> how authoritative his opinions are.
Yes you do. You know he's a wingnut because you got the quote
from a freeper site.
DiLorenzo is an Austrian School anarcho-capitalist who thinks
that the New Deal was counterproductive, that the
Southern Secession was justified, and in general is
a fringe government minimalist.
We might as well get quotes from Angela Davis
and Lyndon LaRouche.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
Angela was political candidate for the Communist Party USA CPUSA, and
LaRouche was a democrat. I think you have the left and right wingnuts
confused.
But why not? Everyone outside the shine of your small candle is
crazy. Isn't that right, Rob?
TCross
Zev
> On Sep 17, 4:27 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 9:20 pm, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 17, 12:29 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> > > > "Rob Strom"
> > > > randy
> > > Most people love social security and medicare.
>
> > > They may not be ideal, but they like it better than Aetna.
>
> > 1) It's easier to cheat social security and medicare
> > 2) They think *someone else* pays for it
> > 3) They don't know the system is tottering toward bankruptcy
>
> 1) only because the definition of cheating is more precisely defined.
> It's also easier for Aetna to cheat you.
IOW, you agree.
> 2) don't understand
Employees see *part* of it in their gross,
and what they see is soon forgotten
because they never get it in their hands.
> 3) it isn't, we could have put them on a sound footing
> but chose to do the iraq war instead.
You mean pay for social security with taxes?
> > It's because of the collapse of sub-prime.
> > Have you heard of NINJA mortgages?
> > It's: No Income, No Job, No Assets.
>
> > The following may be from a professor of economics.
> > I no nothing about him, and I don't know
> > how authoritative his opinions are.
>
> Yes you do. You know he's a wingnut because you got the quote
> from a freeper site.
> DiLorenzo is an Austrian School anarcho-capitalist who thinks
> that the New Deal was counterproductive, that the
> Southern Secession was justified, and in general is
> a fringe government minimalist.
I wrote the above disclaimer because I didn't know about him.
If I would have known this I might have looked
for a more conventional source.
But the facts are inarguable.
You make a lot of risky loans, you get yourself into trouble.
You pass on the risks to someone else,
who makes his profit by playing packaging
and option games with them and reselling to others,
who may do the same thing,
things just get worse.
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> Since when has the government managed well in the area of business? The
> U.S.
> postal service, the U.S. military, the Social Security Administration--
"Most people love social security and medicare."
They will not like it when they go bankrupt! They have not been managed well
by the federal government.
"They may not be ideal, but they like it better than Aetna."
Americans seem to like the current system, and fear Obama's "changes." The
idea is to fix what we have--not change it wholescale.
> If they are not reimbursed at higher rates, the quality of their care will
> go down. And if government policies determine what *should* be covered,
> recommendations for certain kinds of care will be offered less. In other
> words, care will be *rationed.*
"No. Care is rationed NOW."
Of course it is, but it will get worse the more the government gets involved
in business competition. There is no way private insurance companies can
compete with government-sponsored health insurance without a major reduction
in services and employees. Some health servoces *need* to be rationed. What
I'm disturbed about is this false advertising about how a "public option"
will reduce costs for Americans. The truth is, it will lead to huge costs,
huge deficits, and ultimately severe rationing.
When people adjust to and grow accustomed to living in dependance upon this
kind of health care, they will defend it to the death. But by then they will
not know that alternatives would've been far better. That's why people get
so fired up about keeping their Social Security, and that's why Europeans
get so defensive when others challenge their own socialized health care
systems.
"A profit-based insurance company has the incentive to serve
their stockholder's interests, which is not necessarily the same as
the interests
of the sick people that it is their moral obligation to be helping."
No, it isn't the same thing, but it's similar. What makes you think
stockholders care less about rank and file people than government officials
do, or officers presiding over a "public option" company? The private
company has to compete in order to make people happy with their health care.
The more socialized a health system becomes, the less alternatives there
are, and thus, the less incentive there is to improve in competition with
other systems.
"Yes, that is true. The people didn't know that the government
was committing torture and spying on their neighbors.
But a new day has dawned, and it is morning in America again.
Formerly it was "mourning in America"."
Said like a true patriot. (please note sarcasm)
"The basic premise of libertarianism is wrong, too.
It is based on Ayn Rand and other people who extol
selfishness and think we're not our brothers' keepers.
They also don't understand the math of the prisoner's
dilemma and other game-theoretic situations that
call for regulation. As a Christian, even though
you don't understand the math, you should reject that premise."
Libertarianism has gone through changes, and how you view it depends on
whether you believe you need a strong State to support it or not. As for Ayn
Rand, her complete failure to embrace religious reality makes her system
subject to excessive selfishness.
I agree with you that we do have a responsibility to others. But to empower
the State to make people contribute to the government's narrow idea of what
altruism is--that's wrong. The government may represent the people, but it
must err on the side of *less government,* or the result will be a kind of
dictatorship implementing suspect religious ideals.
> At any rate, that does not reflect the
> large-scale interest across the country, reflected in the rise of interest
> in FOX news, and reflected in polls showing the President's falling
> popularity.
"FOX "news" is entertainment."
News *and* entertainment. It is a cable broadcast designed to represent at
times single-party views. But it offers the same opportunity for both
conservative and liberal causes, to both Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats don't like to visit Fox, though, because in doing so they have to
be "fair and balanced," they have to give public airing to the opposing
view. And they would like largely their own view to be heard, without
opposition.
> Lots of people at Fox reported conservative disenchantment with Bush
> policies.
"No. Not to the heightened level of anger you're seeing now from the
sodomites."
How do you know? Did you watch Fox? I saw a lot of conservative
disenchantment with Bush. Under his administration government grew, bills
piled up, and intervention exceeded our ability to win wars. Some of this is
at least partly understandable, in view of 911. Homeland Security, computer
monitoring, and the continuing policy of military strength can all be
explained by this. As well, the fall of our economic well-being can be at
least partyly explained by this extravagant spending, at a time of national
calamity, so that further bailouts of banks and businesses had to take place
on some level. Some of the blame lies not just with Bush, however, but with
a Congress that favored giving poor people homes they could not afford.
"The French were among those who were *right* about
Iraq WMDs, when we were horribly and tragically
wrong to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths..."
Easy for the French to be right about something, when they were tragically
wrong about Hitler. They can just sit back and let someone else do all the
work of protecting them from al Qaida.
> Or maybe we should give them a better model of their own--in the nude?
"That is so obscene and disgusting we'll pretend you didn't say it."
It is??? France is the home of the Enlightenment. Much of the art coming out
of the French Enlightenment focused on nude women. It was a defiant slap at
Christian morals, which the Enlightenment considered to be out of date and
excessively self-righteous.
> The point is,
> government seems to be getting more powerful under Obama,
"No, it isn't. We're not torturing people and engaging in
warrantless wiretapes."
How much has really changed under Obama? We're still engaged in the War in
Afghanistan, and our troops are still in Iraq. I realize that we've speeded
up the timetable for departure from Iraq, but Bush hoped to accomplish that
too. The increase in troops in Afghanistan is all Obama. But where are your
accusations of him that he is a "warmongerer?"
"...Everybody sucked up to Bush and bashed his opponents as unpatriotic...."
Certainly not true!
> ...Remember, Obama said that if we pass his Stimulus Plan we would not go
> above 8%? ;)
"You haven't found the place where he said this, and we don't have 10%
unemployment because we restored the tax levels to pre-Bush,
because actually, we HAVEN'T DONE IT YET."
Okay, in this article it is Obama's representatives who said this...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8079242
(quote)
The White House has been criticized for being overly rosy about employment
projections. Just 10 days before taking office, Obama's top economic
advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent
or below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional
approval.
(unquote)
I don't know why you criticize Obama for not restoring tax levels to
"pre-Bush?" I thought you were *for* Obama?
"We have high unemployment because of the credit crunch
created by Bush's disgusting greedy unregulated friends
that he wanted to deregulate even more."
You forget that Democrats have ruled in Congress for some time, and they
have the legislative authority. If nothing was done, it is their fault--not
Bush's.
> I'm sorry, but the profit motive is what drives business in this country.
"This is insurance, not production. Insurance companies
don't build a single tractor, cure a single disease,
invent a drug, put together a single car."
The profit motive drives all jobs in America! Are you really this naive? Do
you really think the majority of the people care one bit about *your* needs,
or about the needs of *all* Americans? But they are forced to be concerned
when their own-wellbeing is dependent on the country doing well as a whole.
The profit motive ensures this, because in order for people to stay
employed, the economy has to do well. And in order for businesses to do
well, the people have to do well.
But we've all seen what socialism-gone-astray does, in the matter of the
Soviet Union. 20 million Russians died because the government falsely
represented what "the people" wanted, what the working class wanted, and
starved people by redistributing wealth where the State needed it, and not
where people needed it.
"Insurance is different: it's a math problem. We want
to reduce the standard deviation of the risks of getting
sick. We don't want to do that by making the
working population take risks. We instead want
to increase the pool of money to reduce the
variance of the risk, and we also want to reduce
the total cost of the risk (by doing more prevention
and reducing duplication), and reduce the overhead
(by lowering the profits of the middlemen)."
If the working population doesn't take risks, they overuse their insurance
benefits. They act carelessly and sloppy. What reduces overhead and
duplication is capitalistic competition--not government socialism. The
government grows the bureaucracy--it doesn't decrease it.
We cannot increase the pool of money to cover *everybody* in a sloppy
manner. That is what is bankrupting the Social Security system. We cannot
cover everybody when the Baby Boom generation ages and sloppily wants too
much medical coverage at the expense of young working people. Risks do have
to be taken, and people do have to reap what they sow. If they want to risk
all by adventuring overseas in business, they have to live with the
consequences. Other Americans should not share their burden with them.
"A single payer plan is the *best* way to do this..."
You definitely have socialist tendencies. Do you really think the government
under a two-party system really reflects the needs and wants of the people?
They can easily be manipulated by government propaganda, and I'm not sure
you want fascism or communism, do you?
We do have government-controlled services, whether agencies or businesses,
that seem to work fairly well. For example we regulate utilities. However,
I'm not convinced at this point that health insurance is the same as, for
example, utilities. People must have health needs met, just as they must
have utilities. However, there is so much discretionary spending on health,
determined by what choices people make. All require the use of electricity
and gasoline. But people make life decisions that ultimately cause their
health to suffer. That is a matter of suffering consequences, which is a
burden not all people should be forced to bear.
"Regulation, as I've repeatedly said,
is *more* socialistic than a public option."
I do have some socialistic leanings. I am a partial-socialist, in this
respect.
> You're an absolute tyrant. Get off my property,
"It's not yours; it's God's."
I thought you wanted me to keep my religion and my "theocracy" out of your
business as an American? Now you want *your religious ideals* to be imposed
on me through your Democratic representatives?
If you want to quote the Jewish Scriptures on helping the poor, why don't
you listen to the part of your Scriptures where it warns you not to covet my
property?
"But stop repeating that nonsense that it's your money
and taxation is theft. The Constitution says
the government has a right to collect taxes
and the Bible says that you have a duty
to give "your" money to the needy."
The Constitution says that the government has the right to collect taxes on
matters of important national interest. So much is discretionary spending
today to the extent I don't believe the government is collecting taxes for
that purpose. It is a relinquishment of personal responsibility to the
government, to bail out *everybody* for any and all causes. This creates
sloppiness in our personal living, and it makes for bad choices in family
living. You can just tell the young girl to go out, have sex, and don't
worry about getting pregnant. The government will pick up the tab.
randy
randy
"Zev"
"It's because of the collapse of sub-prime.
Have you heard of NINJA mortgages?
It's: No Income, No Job, No Assets."
True enough.
"The following may be from a professor of economics.
I no nothing about him, and I don't know
how authoritative his opinions are.
I would guess that he's no less knowledgable than you are.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086299/posts
quote:..."
"The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which
compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers..."
Yes, that's the problem. Government-forced "equality." That does not equate
to "equal" responsiblity among individuals who can be reckless with their
finances. To make the whole society bear the burden of individual
irresponsibility is immoral and unAmerican. It trods on the rights of free
Americans to make their own private investments, with its own rights and
responsiblities. We should bear our own consequences, rather than impose the
consequences of irresponsible choices on others.
"So-called �community groups� like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA
through a process that sounds like legalized extortion...."
ACORN is presently in a world of hurt, thanks in part to Fox coverage of its
scandals. More liberal networks took a week to produce any significant
coverage of the recent scandals, ie the private sting operation that took
place recently.
randy
randy
"Rob Strom"
randy
> "That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
> hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
> sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
> (according to others)."
> Sounds like that's *your* eschatology, Rob!
"Not at all! I don't believe there is an afterlife, as you know."
Yes I do, sadly. However, your use of "loaded" terminology, borrowed from
Christian eschatology, shows the utter disdain you have for some
people--worse than what Christian fundamentalists think about "lost souls,"
doomed to Hell. You detest the Christian concept of Hell, and so use it as
the worst form of denunciation you can conceive of to express your hatred
for Christians you disagree with politically.
"*If Christianity is true* (which I don't think), then SP
is in deep trouble. Details are not clear. It might
be a rope, it might be a hook. It might be
hot sulfur, or it might be boiling excrement.
It depends upon the particular details of
the eschatology."
I understand you are just being tongue-in-cheek. However, it is a form of
hatred that makes you culpable before God. Even under the Jewish religious
system, you are not to hate your enemies. Why you think Christians hate
others, and why you then use their language to justify your own hatred is
beyond me.
Christians worry about Hell because they want to *save* others. But you use
our eschatology as a form of condemnation of those you disagree with
politically. How utterly unlike Christians you are! So I do hope you will
give Christianity a chance, because it will show you that our dogma does not
produce hatred, but rather, love.
"Why do you make me out to be some kind of monster, when
it's the other side that are the monsters???"
They are not monsters. You are judging by appearances, which is something
Jesus asked us not to do. If you want to understand Christianity from the
inside, find Christians who have a genuine internal experience, and follow
that.
But neither do we believe that a genuine internal experience necessarily
leads to spotless perfection, or to some kind of perfect political ideology.
We are all imperfect. But we need Christ on the inside. He is the one who is
perfect. Our spirituality must emanate from a perfect source, ie from God.
randy
Sam Taylor
not single mortgage holders.
the next biggest group was those whom had 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th
mortgage on the same property.
the smallest group were those only financing a single property.
of these black mortgage holders in default was 7% latino 12%
the Majority were White mortgage holders.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:41:23 -0700, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
wrote:
>
>"Zev"
>"It's because of the collapse of sub-prime.
>Have you heard of NINJA mortgages?
>It's: No Income, No Job, No Assets."
>
>True enough.
>
>"The following may be from a professor of economics.
>I no nothing about him, and I don't know
>how authoritative his opinions are.
>I would guess that he's no less knowledgable than you are.
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086299/posts
>quote:..."
>
>"The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which
>compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers..."
>
>Yes, that's the problem. Government-forced "equality." That does not equate
>to "equal" responsiblity among individuals who can be reckless with their
>finances. To make the whole society bear the burden of individual
>irresponsibility is immoral and unAmerican. It trods on the rights of free
>Americans to make their own private investments, with its own rights and
>responsiblities. We should bear our own consequences, rather than impose the
>consequences of irresponsible choices on others.
>
>"So-called �community groups� like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA
Sam Taylor
real estate Speculators did, as much as those whom bundled up
mortgages up in unbacked securities.
THIS IS A RIGHT WING WACKO MYTH!!!
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:58:32 GMT, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor)
wrote:
Sam Taylor
Intrest on their home purchase, White buyers of 5 or more properties
were the largest to default, of these more than half had 2 or more
mortgages on the properties on the properties defaulted on.
and were the ones the banks tried to negotiate with rather
than want to foreclose on.
the sewcond largest group were those with more than 4 properties,
followed by 2 or more.
of all those whom defaulted the smallest group at 7% were black
mortgage holders
whites were again the largest to default in single property sales
Latino's 12 % asdians i should say was the smallest of any to default
at less than 3% of all
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:14:50 GMT, cyg...@cncnet.com (Sam Taylor)
randy
"Sam Taylor"
> Most mortgage defaults were by those who held multiple mortgages
> not single mortgage holders.
> the next biggest group was those whom had 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th
> mortgage on the same property.
> the smallest group were those only financing a single property.
> of these black mortgage holders in default was 7% latino 12%
> the Majority were White mortgage holders.
Assuming your statistics are in order, it really makes no difference. The
policy was designed to aid minorities, and people suffering the "disability"
of poor financial management. In the end, those who took advantage of the
program were, just like poor blacks, incapable of repaying their debt. Those
kinds of programs were promoted by Democrats, and Congress has to take
responsbility for the role this took in our current housing crisis.
randy
randy
"Sam Taylor"
> BLACK Mortgage Holders DID NOT bring down the market!!!
I did not personally say that. I supported Zev's contention that this kind
of policy caused the current housing crisis, and most common-sense people
agree with me. Many experts are saying this. Nobody is saying that "blacks"
caused this criss. Nobody is saying that *only* black failures to pay debt
caused this.
But it was a program designed to help blacks and others like them, who
wanted an equal right to own their own house. The plan to make things
equitable for all went amock. It did not take into account the dangers when
individual responsibility is ignored. Cheap insurance coverage ensures
sloppy living. Cheap interest rates offered with few stipulations invites
irresponsible investment and speculation.
randy
Tammy Strom
> "Rob Strom"
> randy
>
> > "That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
> > hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
> > sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
> > (according to others)."
> > Sounds like that's *your* eschatology, Rob!
>
> "Not at all! I don't believe there is an afterlife, as you know."
>
> Yes I do, sadly. However, your use of "loaded" terminology, borrowed from
> Christian eschatology, shows the utter disdain you have for some
> people--worse than what Christian fundamentalists think about "lost souls,"
> doomed to Hell. You detest the Christian concept of Hell, and so use it as
> the worst form of denunciation you can conceive of to express your hatred
> for Christians you disagree with politically.
It's not hatred at all.
These are, as you know, the Days of Awe, and we specifically
say that we do not seek the death of the wicked, but rather
that they turn from their ways.
We love the sinners and hate the sin.
>
> "*If Christianity is true* (which I don't think), then SP
> is in deep trouble. Details are not clear. It might
> be a rope, it might be a hook. It might be
> hot sulfur, or it might be boiling excrement.
> It depends upon the particular details of
> the eschatology."
>
> I understand you are just being tongue-in-cheek. However, it is a form of
> hatred that makes you culpable before God. Even under the Jewish religious
> system, you are not to hate your enemies.
I don't. We would cheer and cheer if Palin were to change her ways.
I would actually support evangelizing her supporters to persuade them
to change.
> Why you think Christians hate
> others, and why you then use their language to justify your own hatred is
> beyond me.
>
> Christians worry about Hell because they want to *save* others. But you use
> our eschatology as a form of condemnation of those you disagree with
> politically. How utterly unlike Christians you are!
No. On the contrary, Christians use hell to scare little children
into adopting their religion.
I don't believe in it at all.
It is totally wrong to say that I predict that Palin will land in
hell,
or that I hope that she will be punished in hell.
I bring it up to point out how exceedingly unlikely it is
that she is any kind of a Christian. If she were Christian,
she would know that she is an unrepentant sinner
and that hell awaits her for her mortal sins. So why
isn't she quaking in her boots??
The answer: she's a faker, and she is just going through
the motions of pretending to be Christian.
...
>
> They are not monsters. You are judging by appearances, which is something
> Jesus asked us not to do.
No. It is actually a Jewish law that you reject that teaches that!
Don't assume because you saw someone walking in the red light
district that they are visiting a prostitute, for example. The
commandment teaches us to not make negative conclusions
from inconclusive evidence.
But here Palin's lies are out in the open.
> If you want to understand Christianity from the
> inside, find Christians who have a genuine internal experience, and follow
> that.
She doesn't have a genuine internal experience. I have checked.
--
Rob Strom
Terry Cross
> On Sep 18, 12:52 pm, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Rob Strom"
> > randy
>
> > > "That is exactly why Sarah Palin is going to find herself after death,
> > > hung from a slowly rotating rope over an eternal burning pool of
> > > sulfur (according to some eschatologists) or boiling excrement
> > > (according to others)."
> > > Sounds like that's *your* eschatology, Rob!
>
> > "Not at all! I don't believe there is an afterlife, as you know."
>
> > Yes I do, sadly. However, your use of "loaded" terminology, borrowed from
> > Christian eschatology, shows the utter disdain you have for some
> > people--worse than what Christian fundamentalists think about "lost souls,"
> > doomed to Hell. You detest the Christian concept of Hell, and so use it as
> > the worst form of denunciation you can conceive of to express your hatred
> > for Christians you disagree with politically.
>
> It's not hatred at all.
The true irony is that those images are borrowed from the Talmud, not
Christianity. According to the Talmud, those are the tortures now
suffered by Jesus and the Saints of Christendom for defying the
Pharisees ("sages"):
He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3 He
asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel.
What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not
their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He
said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot
excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the
Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. -- Gittin 57a
http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html
Isn't that a hoot? That is why Rob quoted that nonsense -- it is the
classic reversal of accusing others of one's own nonsense.
TCross
Rob Strom
> >>make
> >>good decisions and decide one way or the other.
> > But we're talking about people who present themselves as needing
> > medical care but unable to pay. How do you decide who is
> > deserving of help and who is not? What are your criteria?
>
> It is a matter of a free society helping themselves to information that is
> uncensored and available in abundance. When we make choices, we should not
> have the government determine what jobs we should take, what plans we should
> be on, what doctors we should get. When people try to work, but cannot get
> it, or can't get a job that adequately pays for real medical needs, the
> government, serving the people, has to set up criteria for determining that
> there really is a financial need. The government can set up things like a
> "poverty level," or a list of what operations are critical for our
> well-being.
>
> > But we were talking about health care, not welfare.
>
> In our system, Welfare contributes to the poor family's medical costs.
Not enough, and most people aren't on welfare, and they don't
get covered well enough.
I have been telling you that my self-employed son and daughter-in-law
have had their insurance jump so high that they had to drop
prescription coverage.
>
> >>On the contrary, God let the man on the road get beat up, because he chose
> >>to go down that road.
> > I have no idea what point you're making with that sentence.
>
> The point is that when the government tells someone what system he must be
> under, what system he must pay for, then he has to go down a "particular
> road."
As opposed to when Aetna tells him the same thing?
> But in a free system, people can pay for their own health plans,
No they can't.
> and
> not have to bear the burden for a system available to all, and abused by
> many irresponsible people.
Nonsense. Medical expenses come because of the
bad luck of genes, the bad luck of germs, or the
bad luck of accidents.
The evil and hypocrisy of Republicans is particularly
acute here.
Republicans are always big on "tort reform". Of course
tort reform is really code for "make it even harder
to successfully sue anybody". They say this
because they want to eliminate abuses of
excessive jury award is malpractise cases,
and the defensive medical decision-making
this sometimes leads to.
There are indeed such abuses, but studies show
that this is just a small fraction of what makes
our health care costs so way out of line.
What is hypocritical is that under a system where
many people don't have health insurance is that
people have to sue more often!!!
If you have an auto accident, or if you get
a disease that you think is due to
someone else's fault -- e.g. industrial
pollution, if your expenses aren't covered
by insurance, you may be faced with
an enormous bill that could bankrupt you,
unless you can go to court and show
that someone else is responsible for
that cost!!
So you pretty much *have* to try to
hire a lawyer and take the gamble
that you can prove your case.
For industrial defendants that's
very hard: first of all, they're likely
to have better lawyers. Second of
all, the standard of proof you need
is too high, and "tort reform" often
makes it even higher. For example,
it may be that this pollution can statistically
be shown to double the cancer
rate, so it clearly contributes to
cancer, but can you prove that
***this particular**** patient's
cancer was caused by this pollution???
Maybe it's an 80% chance, but
perhaps an 80% chance won't
convince a jury, so even though
in a sample of 100 plaintiffs,
80 of them should get reimbursed,
actually none of them do! Or
it depends upon the luck of what
the jury decides that particular day.
Sometimes the plaintiff gets nothing,
sometimes he gets the compensation
he deserves, sometimes he gets
10 times what he deserves!
Under a system of insurance, rather than
an American system where cancer
is somebody's "fault", people will
get paid based upon their actual
medical needs. And then *independently*
of case-by-case lawsuits, governments
can look at the cancer statistics and
decide how much pollution regulation is needed
to lower the risk to the public.
That would be a sensible system, but the
Republicans don't want that.
>
> > On the other hand, you were saying: If you meet with misfortune,
> > you shouldn't expect the rest of us to bail you out.
>
> The person who meets with misfortune, or the poor family, *is taken care of*
> under our system.
No.
> We have Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare,
They don't take care of most of us enough.
>
> along with a host of compassionate resources for those in need, both public
> and religious. We have Housing programs, emergency resources, etc. Some of
> this comes by the voluntary contributions of good people, and some by our
> system, which recognizes we *all* have legitimate needs in emergency
> situations.
It's too expensive. You don't want to wait for emergencies.
--
Rob Strom