Although I don't want to lump Gozer into the same circle as you considering I have had far more revealing discussions with him than I ever had with you.
Wow. Well, I guess that's enough of that. What is wrong with you?
That's one way to contribute. Or, you could... make an argument. Just thinking out loud here.
Again, this is exactly what you've been doing the whole thread. Don't like a position, you fight back with stupid rhetorical answers. I clarify my position, you don't even bother to acknowledge because you've moved onto the next point you want to attack.
I clarify that, and you move on to the next point. Over and over and over again.
Quote:
The details ARE important when it comes to these issues. Pretty much everyone (a few congressional Republicans excluded) agrees that health care reform is needed in the U.S. What people disagree about is the details.
Yes, and have you gone and looked up any of the details yourself? Gone and looked up any kind of reform that was being proposed by Republicans or Democrats? No, you haven't, which is why its so goddamn hard to explain something to you.
Your post deserves a thanks for the first 2 sentences, and a go back to watching MSNBC for the rest.
He won the election, so he gets his 4 years to prove that he can accomplish something meaningful - but dont expect everyone to swallow his swill lock stock and 2 smoking barrels. 2 of the 4 for sure are democrat controlled so he doesnt have any excuses.
I am waiting to see how he preforms the magic trick of a new govt run health care plan that wont cost middle income taxpayers anything - he plans on funding it through cuts of medicare (wont add a dime to the deficit). If you want to watch Obama in action, watch George Stephanopoulos interview of him on abcnews.com where he says forcing some americans to pay for govt healthcare is not the same as a new tax. Even left humping Greek scratches his head over that one.
If he can do everything he says in this video - then wow he really is the saviour - one wonders why he isnt now trying to find those savings in medicare to help with the financial crisis the US is facing.
Sorry, but I forgot, because he is Black, everyone who disagrees with him is a racist right?
I want half marks for my last few sentences then . Of course your not a racist if you disagree with him, but jumping up and blurting out LIAR!! in Congress is. Or taking your kids out of school the day the first black president visits there school. The extreme right is using racism to scare middle america into making sure obama doesn't see a second term. But I have faith he will be re-elected, hopefully more on his platform then his race, because obviously that works in his favor as well!
You've made the bold and unique declaration that lower costs would be good.
You appear to be debating this point, not sure with whom.
It was actually part of the problem that I happen to have with a public health care plan. And no, that doesn't mean I oppose it before you and IFF jump all over me again, but if a private and public plan are to exist side by side, there needs to be some kind of competition. The government subsidizing costs does not create competition.
Quote:
We already covered this so I'm not interested in rehashing it.
Again, you repeat that you are against health care being too expensive.
That's close to your original argument, which was that Obama was lying about new taxes and scheming to get a public option introduced.
Oh, so you're only interested in rehashing it if it serves as something you can attack me with?
From the start now.
1. I do not think that fining someone to force them into a health care program is beneficial for the competition side of the equation especially if a private plan still exists. It COULD lead to out of control costs similar to what Medicare is dealing with right now.
2. I do not think that subsidizing private health care without trying to reduce costs FIRST is very smart.
3. I do still support a public option. In fact, I happen to think the two-tier system is the best kind of health care system in the world. But it HAS to be implemented under the right circumstances.
Clear enough? Or is there something else you and IFF want to nitpick at?
1. I do not think that fining someone to force them into a health care program is beneficial for the competition side of the equation especially if a private plan still exists. It COULD lead to out of control costs similar to what Medicare is dealing with right now.
2. I do not think that subsidizing private health care without trying to reduce costs FIRST is very smart.
3. I do still support a public option. In fact, I happen to think the two-tier system is the best kind of health care system in the world. But it HAS to be implemented under the right circumstances.
Clear enough? Or is there something else you and IFF want to nitpick at?
Well, since you're still asking.
1. You don't understand the purpose of the fine. At all. Your explanations have been ignorant at best at fear-mongering at worst.
2. I support Americans having access to health care, this bill makes health care accessible to more Americans. That is not the only issue but it is the most pressing one, and the nature of this bill (consumer protections against insurance companies plus some subsidies) does not infringe upon additional reforms.
I think protecting consumers in a toxic marketplace is much smarter than waiting for the market to correct itself.
3. Please provide an approximate date (in decades - I know you're not a senator) that uninsured Americans will have to wait before you will implement a public option under less-than-ideal circumstances.
1. You don't understand the purpose of the fine. At all. Your explanations have been ignorant at best at fear-mongering at worst.
I do understand the fine. Under certain circumstances I would even agree with something like that. But does it work in a system where health care insurance is private in majority?
Oh, but I'm fear-mongering. I forgot.
Quote:
2. I support Americans having access to health care, this bill makes health care accessible to more Americans. That is not the only issue but it is the most pressing one, and the nature of this bill (consumer protections against insurance companies plus some subsidies) does not infringe upon additional reforms.
And where have I ever said that Americans shouldn't have access to health care? I'm all for cutting costs to make that possible. But do I support the subsidization of private health care that does NOTHING to cut costs, and only creates an even bigger tax burden? No.
Quote:
3. Please provide an approximate date (in decades - I know you're not a senator) that uninsured Americans will have to wait before you will implement a public option under less-than-ideal circumstances.
And I should know this how? How long does it take to reform health care? how long does it take to setup a public option? Why the hell are you asking me stupid questions again?
In a perfect world, tomorrow they would reform health care, and the next day they would create the public option. Will that happen? No. Its going to take one hell of an effort to get the public option anyways the way Obama is going about that, and I don't see you complaining about that.
I'm all for cutting costs to make that possible. But do I support the subsidization of private health care that does NOTHING to cut costs, and only creates an even bigger tax burden? No.
Setting aside if that assertion is true (Obama's bill does nothing to cut costs), what I take from that statement is "the gov't shouldn't subsidize health care because it's too expensive" which is absurd on its face and will surely be contradicted by the preceding sentence.
(truthfully, I peeked)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
And where have I ever said that Americans shouldn't have access to health care?
You didn't, I believe I* earlier characterized your position as "Americans should earn the ability to afford their health care."
*note, Azure didn't say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
I'm all for cutting costs to make [affordable health care] possible. But do I support the subsidization of private health care that does NOTHING to cut costs, and only creates an even bigger tax burden? No.
I was kinda making fun of you for venturing out on the ledge of "I want people to have health care, but for cheaper than they currently get it and with no help from fellow taxpayers."
Rephrasing questions is getting kind of old, but how about this:
How would your stance substantively differ if you believed that people that can't afford health care shouldn't have it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
And I should know this how? How long does it take to reform health care? how long does it take to setup a public option? Why the hell are you asking me stupid questions again?
The question probably doesn't seem that silly to people that don't have access to health insurance based on such tenuous and arbitrary grounds.
But since it's totally irrelevant to me, you're right. Who cares when a better solution comes along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
In a perfect world, tomorrow they would reform health care, and the next day they would create the public option. Will that happen? No. Its going to take one hell of an effort to get the public option anyways the way Obama is going about that, and I don't see you complaining about that.
I wouldn't trade places with Obama right now for all the intern's panties in Washington. Every time I look at an ideologically divided issue he's trying address I picture him trekking through The Swamp like the Dread Pirate Roberts.
Didn't I say a few posts back that people who are 3x below the poverty level(or those that can't afford health care)....should get subsidized care? Didn't I say that doing that would be one way subsidized health care would work?
Does that still say to you that I think people shouldn't have health care if they can't afford it? No it doesn't so quit implying that.
All I'm saying(for the 12th time)...is that while subsidizing private health care only misplaces the cost. And who is supposed to pay for that? Who is supposed to pay for all the doctors, the nurses, the equipment, the hospitals, everything that results from 40 million people being added to the program overnight?
Why is it so hard to think beyond 'people deserve health care' and realize that you can't just implement a program without being concerned about cost.
People complain NOW about cost. Cost, cost, cost. People going bankrupt. People loosing their jobs, their livelihood, everything just to pay for health care. And those costs suddenly go away with subsidized health care? People might not be loosing their livelihood anymore, but the cost is still there. And that COST needs to be addressed.
And saying THAT does not imply that I hate poor people, am racist, or don't think people deserve health care.
Just in case some people reading this thread are inclined to think otherwise. Which, they still will be though.
Didn't I say a few posts back that people who are 3x below the poverty level(or those that can't afford health care)....should get subsidized care? Didn't I say that doing that would be one way subsidized health care would work?
I posted a summary of the plan that stated that IS the current plan, so if your question is "do I actually support this plan I'm railing against" then the answer is "Yes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Does that still say to you that I think people shouldn't have health care if they can't afford it? No it doesn't so quit implying that.
You didn't state it, you only implied it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
All I'm saying(for the 12th time)...is that while subsidizing private health care only misplaces the cost.
It also has a minor side-effect of insuring the uninsured.
But you keep the tally of your talking point going, it will probably support whatever your next stance is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Who is supposed to pay for all the doctors, the nurses, the equipment, the hospitals, everything that results from 40 million people being added to the program overnight?
Why is it so hard to think beyond 'people deserve health care' and realize that you can't just implement a program without being concerned about cost.
People complain NOW about cost. Cost, cost, cost. People going bankrupt. People loosing their jobs, their livelihood, everything just to pay for health care. And those costs suddenly go away with subsidized health care? People might not be loosing their livelihood anymore, but the cost is still there. And that COST needs to be addressed.
This was addressed much earlier in the thread.
Basically, Obama is saying the increase in costs will be manageable.
Supporters don't really believe him but think Bush & Obama's collective spending of trillions of dollars might as well include poor people's health care.
Opposition isn't really interested in addressing the math of the issue, rather the emotion of Obama conscripting freedoms that some of the thread's early posts were laced with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
And saying THAT does not imply that I hate poor people, am racist, or don't think people deserve health care.
Just in case some people reading this thread are inclined to think otherwise. Which, they still will be though.
Honestly, why do I ever bother. Everytime I clarify my position, which has been quite clear, all you do is spin it around, twist it and throw it back in my face. Saying that I think subsidizing 5 million people who happen to be so goddamn poor that you can't afford ANY kind of health insurance does not then mean I agree with subsidizing health care in general, which you imply by saying this.
Quote:
I posted a summary of the plan that stated that IS the current plan, so if your question is "do I actually support this plan I'm railing against" then the answer is "Yes."
I just don't think subsidizing private coverage on general to give health care to all 50 million uninsured people is a very good solution when there might be other ways to cut costs and make health care more affordable for many people who at this time can't afford it.
Have those ways been explored? No, they haven't. Just like when I propose it and I'm greeted by comments like 'so how long will THAT take to implement it' or some rhetoric about me not thinking people should have access to health care, likewise are those Senators who ARE proposing this kind of legislation being opposed by the same rhetoric.
Quote:
It also has a minor side-effect of insuring the uninsured.
But you keep the tally of your talking point going, it will probably support whatever your next stance is.
As does adding a public option. Why not just do that? Oh right, you don't know, because you just ignored me when I asked that the last 10x.
Quote:
This was addressed much earlier in the thread.
Basically, Obama is saying the increase in costs will be manageable.
Supporters don't really believe him but think Bush & Obama's collective spending of trillions of dollars might as well include poor people's health care.
Opposition isn't really interested in addressing the math of the issue, rather the emotion of Obama conscripting freedoms that some of the thread's early posts were laced with.
And how did Obama say he would manage those costs? By cutting $600 billion from Medicare? By cutting other pork and wasteful spending?
Regardless of how he WILL manage the costs, people who actually live in the real world still need to think where all these resources are going to come for to treat all these people who suddenly have health care. Are there doctors available to do that now? No, there are not. In fact most doctors in the US are at this point already overworked. So you have to start thinking about incentives to get more kids to go to medical school. Is anyone thinking about that? No, they're not. Surprise, surprise.
Maybe, just maybe there are people in the US that give a damn about their country and don't employ the attitude of 'well, if we're going to sink, might as well have health care on the way down.'
Last edited by Azure; 09-22-2009 at 06:23 PM.
Reason: might as well not intentionally bait you. :D
I am always amazed when anyone argues at length with Azure. For a guy who often has good points, he always comes across as shrill and defensive, and seems to be less interested in discussion and more interested in being unequivocally correct.
Anyway, I thought Pres. Obama was an entertaining 'interview' on Letterman. I know it's taboo on the CP Off-Topic board to say anything positive about Obama so I'll leave it at that.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
Didn't I say a few posts back that people who are 3x below the poverty level(or those that can't afford health care)....should get subsidized care? Didn't I say that doing that would be one way subsidized health care would work?
Does that still say to you that I think people shouldn't have health care if they can't afford it? No it doesn't so quit implying that.
All I'm saying(for the 12th time)...is that while subsidizing private health care only misplaces the cost. And who is supposed to pay for that? Who is supposed to pay for all the doctors, the nurses, the equipment, the hospitals, everything that results from 40 million people being added to the program overnight?
Why is it so hard to think beyond 'people deserve health care' and realize that you can't just implement a program without being concerned about cost.
People complain NOW about cost. Cost, cost, cost. People going bankrupt. People loosing their jobs, their livelihood, everything just to pay for health care. And those costs suddenly go away with subsidized health care? People might not be loosing their livelihood anymore, but the cost is still there. And that COST needs to be addressed.
And saying THAT does not imply that I hate poor people, am racist, or don't think people deserve health care.
Just in case some people reading this thread are inclined to think otherwise. Which, they still will be though.
You give the distinct impression that you go to sources that will back up your preconceived notions and then come back here and repeat what you wanted to hear.
I'm not an expert on this plan by any stretch. I haven't read it and really, I have tried to ignore it because of the absolutely hysterical reaction it has brought from the stupid people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the ######s carrying guns to town halls and the mind-buggering hollering from people who are calling Obama a communist and Hitler.
That being said, I did watch his big speech a few weeks back and he talked about getting rid of waste and clearing up the crazy malpractice expenses they have down there. Doing those things would clear up money and streamline the whole thing. Is that wrong?
Going by what you say, the idea is just to give 40 million people healthcare and claim it isn't going to cost a dollar, which is crazy of course. But that's not what he said on the television.
Put it simply, I heard him say that they should take the money that is wasted and spend it on useful stuff. Maybe that's pie-in-the-sky thinking or whatever, but he never said "give everyone healthcare and it won't cost us anything", which is what you seem to be suggesting is the plan.
I am always amazed when anyone argues at length with Azure. For a guy who often has good points, he always comes across as shrill and defensive, and seems to be less interested in discussion and more interested in being unequivocally correct.
Anyway, I thought Pres. Obama was an entertaining 'interview' on Letterman. I know it's taboo on the CP Off-Topic board to say anything positive about Obama so I'll leave it at that.
Well, if you go back through the thread you'll notice that I only started getting defensive after it became rather apparent that when I said something it would be twisted and thrown back in my face, and now 'Azure has got explaining to do!!'
It becomes rather tiresome to explain your side if people respond like that.
Like for example, when I said I would tend to agree with subsidizing health care for the really poor people who have a problem buying food let alone health care insurance. Instead of realizing that doesn't then mean I agree with subsidizing health care in general, it gets thrown back into the my face as, "but you said you didn't agree with subsidizing!!!!!"...and then it goes back and forth until the person asking the questions bothers to check what I said in the first places, sees the point, and then moves on to the next thing to nitpick about.
Or, when I talk about the problems with the public option, say I agree with it in theory but then cite concern for the outrageous costs of Medicare, and the need to maybe fix the costs there instead of ignoring them. Instead of realizing that having a problem with runaway costs doesn't necessarily mean you're against the public option(duh!), it gets thrown into my face, "I thought you supported the public option, and here you say you're against it!!!"...when in fact I never said I'm against it. I just expressed the same concern millions of other Americans have been expressing for 50 years in regards to Medicare. There is a problem with how much money it costs.
Not necessarily agreeing with imposing fines to force health insurance, despite me pointing out specifically that it has nothing to do with not wanting health care for every single American, but with the problems doing something like that can have in a market where the majority of the coverage is private, it gets thrown into my face, again and again, "you just don't agree with providing every single person health care coverage!!!"
Or, when I have a problem with subsidizing private insurance because it doesn't fix the underlying problem that in fact does exist with private insurance, cost.....somehow, in some twisted way that equals me either not agreeing with the public option, not wanting healthcare for poor Americans, or not understanding the problem, which in fact is cost. A problem I explicitly mention numerous times as the biggest concern with what is being proposed. Cost, cost, cost.
And the best one yet, when I talk about allowing insurance companies to provide health care insurance out of state, instead of reading what I write, words are put into my mouth based on what an article I posted said. And even after explicitly pointing out how it could be done, still its thrown back into my face, "but you didn't say that, but you didn't say that, you're just moving the goalposts!!!" When in fact, I never moved the goalposts, nor did I in any way suggest that President Obama override the 10th amendment and force the regulation of state health care insurance laws. What I ACTUALLY said, at the START, was that Obama, through Congress, should be working with the States to try and overhaul this problem. After I said THAT, I went and looked up how it could actually be done, and realized that bills had been proposed to allow out of state health care coverage, and it would indeed be quite doable assuming Congress and the President is willing. When I posted that, because well I was asked how it could be done, it was AGAIN thrown back into my face, "but you never said that, you never said that, you're just moving the goalposts again!!!"
In fact, the article was brought up, and words I never said were put into my mouth. Apparently, posting an article means you agree with every single word it says. God forbid any of us play the devil's advocate and post articles just to generate discussion. And then expect people to have the understanding that just because you posted it, that doesn't mean you always agree with what it says.
Hence my frustration. Around page 5 or so, it became quite apparent to me that no matter what I would say, it would still get twisted around and thrown back into my face, and I would be accused of not saying that before, contradicting myself, moving the goalposts or being grumpy. Take your pick, because any of those reasons could apply to almost every single post I made. Or at least it seemed that way.
I am not a US Senator, I am not the President. I'm not even a lawyer that interprets family law in the provincial court of Alberta. My understanding of US Health Care is strictly based on what I've read on the internet. I think it was Shazam would said that my understanding is limited, and that may be right. So expecting me to have all the answers(which was happening throughout the thread)....is a bit stupid, don't you think? I tried to explain the reform I supported and have read about as best I could, but it was never enough. Always, always it got twisted, taken out of context and shoved back into my face and I was told "got some explaining to do."
Wouldn't that eventually piss you off? Wouldn't that eventually frustrate you? I disagree with Thor all the time when it comes to religious issues. But do I expect him to be able to write a 1,200 page report on every single issue I have just to satisfy me? No, I don't. Do I expect Photon to rehash every single religious argument in the book just because I disagree with him? Do I expect him to clarify his position over, and over, and over again until the man will be so frustrated that he'll just ignore me, or worse call me a name and then get banned for it? No, I don't. At some point you have to step back and think that maybe the people on a message board that is primarily focused on the Calgary Flames maybe don't have all the answers when it comes to religion, to hockey even, to life, or to the health care reform of a country with 304 million people and a GDP of almost 14 trillion.
I think I went above and beyond to try and explain my positions, but every single time I did that, it got twisted and thrown back at me where I then had to clarify it twice more before it was eventually ignored because it made sense. I don't claim that anything I suggest will work. I don't claim that I have all the answers. But, I do know that what I have to say about reforming US Health Care DOES make sense, that there are ways to implement those kinds of ideas to see if they will work.
And yes, because I'm not university educated with a minor in English I don't have the ability to get my point across like some other people on here. Should I apologize for that? Or, like I do with a lot of other people, maybe it would help if someone was given the benefit of the doubt when they same something, instead of attacking them with stupid rhetoric about hating Obama and not being able to being objective when it comes to talking about his policies.
I know exactly how much research I've done in regards to this health care issue. My opposition with what Obama is proposing has nothing to do with being anti-Obama, or hating him, which was suggested. It has to do with my understanding of how certain things function. Am I wrong? Maybe, but if you think I'm wrong debate why, and not just slam back rhetoric about me not being able to call anything Obama does 'good.'
. Of course your not a racist if you disagree with him, but jumping up and blurting out LIAR!! in Congress is. Or taking your kids out of school the day the first black president visits there school. The extreme right is using racism to scare middle america into making sure obama doesn't see a second term. But I have faith he will be re-elected, hopefully more on his platform then his race, because obviously that works in his favor as well!
No, I don't. At some point you have to step back and think that maybe the people on a message board that is primarily focused on the Calgary Flames maybe don't have all the answers when it comes to religion, to hockey even, to life, or to the health care reform of a country with 304 million people and a GDP of almost 14 trillion. 
