Obama, HealthCare, and why Pelosi is a moron

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...are/index.html

Article that brings together a few reasons why some Obama supporters don't like the health care plan.

I imagine this comment will incite opposition but it seems the reason people fear healthcare is they fear the government. I bet they don't know how many services have been nationalized in the US. I find it amazing that they trust in business more than government, especially seeing how their healthcare has treated them for decades. It's unfathomable to me.

Jon Stewart showed a great clip of Glenn Beck in June of 09 stating that the US' healthcare is the best on earth and then clips from early 2008 when he received treatment and he saying how poor the quality was despite the fact he went to an elite, expensive clinic. To each his own, I suppose.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

I imagine this comment will incite opposition but it seems the reason people fear healthcare is they fear the government. I bet they don't know how many services have been nationalized in the US. I find it amazing that they trust in business more than government, especially seeing how their healthcare has treated them for decades. It's unfathomable to me.

Jon Stewart showed a great clip of Glenn Beck in June of 09 stating that the US' healthcare is the best on earth and then clips from early 2008 when he received treatment and he saying how poor the quality was despite the fact he went to an elite, expensive clinic. To each his own, I suppose.

I think you're right, but for the wrong reason.

Most people don't trust the government's ability to administer a program of this size. They've failed miserably every time they've tried.

Doesn't have as much to do with a fundamental mistrust of the government's morality.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

I imagine this comment will incite opposition but it seems the reason people fear healthcare is they fear the government. I bet they don't know how many services have been nationalized in the US. I find it amazing that they trust in business more than government, especially seeing how their healthcare has treated them for decades. It's unfathomable to me.

Jon Stewart showed a great clip of Glenn Beck in June of 09 stating that the US' healthcare is the best on earth and then clips from early 2008 when he received treatment and he saying how poor the quality was despite the fact he went to an elite, expensive clinic. To each his own, I suppose.

Could you please explain to me why its perfectly reasonable to trust any kind of entity that has shown numerous times in the past 100 years that it is incapable of running a program of this magnitude efficiently?

If any company would run their 'business' like the government runs its programs, they would either go under, or drag the rest of the country under with them.

People don't trust the government because the government is a bloated pig of an organization that doesn't know how to do anything correct. And the US Government is the worst of them all.

The only reason we have any kind of decent health care in Canada is because its handled by the individual provinces. So, instead of administering health care to 300 million people, the province of Alberta only has to look after 3-4 million people. And they STILL can't do it right, despite spending a lot of frickin' money.

I don't trust businesses that receive poor ratings from literally everyone that works with them. And that is exactly what the US government is. A bloated business that can't do anything right anymore.

Cash 4 Clunkers, Social Security, Medicare, MediAid, Food Stamps, etc, etc....all programs that the government has been incapable of running properly.

And ALL programs that private businesses and charity organizations have been able to run efficiently for years.

What needs to be fixed in the way the health care system is RUN.

Here is a good start.

[Azure]

Democrats are trying to explain opposition to ObamaCare as a sinister conspiracy controlled by the hidden hand of the health-care industry. Psychologists call this projection. Why bother with a new conspiracy when you’ve already clinched a secret deal with the President?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...960419516.html

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Huh? I never said she was a moron. Where the heck did that come from?

Sorry about that, my assumption was you had a low opinion of her... as far as I know we're debating the appropriateness of the use of the word 'moron' in the thread title. Not you. My perception was that you chose to defend the use of the word, or at least critique my observation that it was probably innappropriate.

It is amazing that you guys have made this claim that the word moron in the title caused the venom but not one person has come forward to say that it incited them, including both you and fatso...who in fact have denied that it incited you.

I was making a joke originally, but one I thought had a decent grain of truth to it. Starting the thread by calling Pelosi a moron made it more likely (in my opinion) for rancorous, intense debate. I stand by that... I don't really see how I'm being controversial in believing that. I was pretty flip about it, used a smiley face, and received some pretty intense response from you for reasons I still don't fathom.

I still don't get it, but I guess you guys have proven yourselves correct by repeating yourselves and not refuting a single point I've made.

I find your style to be offensive. I believe I've made quite a few points that you haven't really addressed either. I feel like I've been pretty polite and fairly open-minded, but your condescending emoticons and debate style make it pretty tough to call this productive debate.

You also seemed to have created 'sides' that I've been lumped in to. For the record I don't care about Pelosi, positively or negatively, I literally have zero opinion on her. My original post was quite clearly not 'incited', it was funny (imo).

My original point, to reiterate, is that it is innappropriate to call Pelosi a moron in the thread title, in my opinion. By doing so, it is creating a greater chance that the debate will immediately devolve into the political pettiness we see in the thread.

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by Azure

Could you please explain to me why its perfectly reasonable to trust any kind of entity that has shown numerous times in the past 100 years that it is incapable of running a program of this magnitude efficiently?

If any company would run their 'business' like the government runs its programs, they would either go under, or drag the rest of the country under with them.

Really? You mean like Ford, GM, Lehman Bros., Citi Bank and others? Were would they be without the government? They would be defunct, as companies that poorly run should be. At least with government they are accountable to the people and ala Paul Martin can be dismissed A over T in a matter of time. The government may be at times inefficient and wasteful and they may have their bouts with corruption, they wouldn't be capable in this country of brining down the economy due to corporate greed, ridiculous mortgage lending practices, questionable bond ratings and approvals, investment practices and credation approval policies.

I think we've highlighted the major difference between Canada and the US and the many ways it manifests itself in both nations.

[Azure]

All those companies you listed? Despite very bad business practices, the government calls them 'to big to fail' and as a result, the taxpayer is paying for their mistakes.

The whole idea of a free market is based around smaller, more efficient companies stepping up to take over when the big greedy ones fall apart because of their own mistakes.

AIG has sucked how many billions from the US taxpayer? And how many billions more are they going to keep asking for?

And guess what? The government keeps giving it to them.

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by Azure

All those companies you listed? Despite very bad business practices, the government calls them 'to big to fail' and as a result, the taxpayer is paying for their mistakes.

The whole idea of a free market is based around smaller, more efficient companies stepping up to take over when the big greedy ones fall apart because of their own mistakes.

AIG has sucked how many billions from the US taxpayer? And how many billions more are they going to keep asking for?

And guess what? The government keeps giving it to them.

You're making my point for me. With AIG that is 5 huge companies alone that I wouldn't trust. Feel free to group all the healthcare insurers and their denials of claims and never ending search for pre-existing conditions here to get back to the topic at hand. Those medical and insurance firms have been the cause of bankruptcy and neglect while taking in record profits as premiums go up to nearly unaffordable levels. The status quo in the US always will be and has been an unsustainable system despite cries of socialism.

If you trust these types of companies over the government, you're picking your own poison. In all the decades this despairity has existed I haven't seen on any level government intervention or smaller firms step up to replace this void on a large scale until now.

[Azure]

And my point is that without government help, those companies would be long gone and nobody would be FORCED to deal with them.

I don't trust those companies. I want them to fail and go under so smaller more efficient companies can some in and take over.

But the government isn't letting that happen. So while you can blame the fact that those companies failed on horrible business practices, you also have to blame the government for not letting them fail like they SHOULD.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

For the record I don't care about Pelosi, positively or negatively, I literally have zero opinion on her. My original post was quite clearly not 'incited', it was funny (imo).

My original point, to reiterate, is that it is innappropriate to call Pelosi a moron in the thread title, in my opinion. By doing so, it is creating a greater chance that the debate will immediately devolve into the political pettiness we see in the thread.

OK, let me be clear here. I have no problem with you thinking the word moron in the title is inappropriate. Have never argued that, am not arguing that.

All I am arguing is your assertion (and fatso's) that because that word was in the title, venom ensued.

My question, which nobody has answered, is how can that argument be made when the people involved in the thread have no feeling about her one way or the other? You've illustrated this in the portion of your last post that I chose to quote above.

I don't feel that my responses have been strong, incited and I certainly don't feel they've been condescending. The emoticons were used to express confusion and bewilderment! If the thread had been about Jarome Iginla, or even Stephen Harper...a person that most people in this forum have at least some opinion about, I would agree with you. But Nancy Pelosi? I just don't see it.

You have continually tried to make something out of my argument that doesn't exist. Whether your post was funny or dead serious is quite irrelevant...it presented an argument that I find very questionable and so I presented my opinion in that light. It is certainly NOT personal. I'm not attacking you, your political views, your posting style or anything else. The only thing I've been trying to discuss is the logic behind assuming that the word moron, when used to descirbe a person that nobody involved in the discussion has revealed anything more positive than neutral opinions on, should be expected to cause nastiness. That's it! Nothing more!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

Really? You mean like Ford, GM, Lehman Bros., Citi Bank and others? Were would they be without the government? They would be defunct, as companies that poorly run should be. At least with government they are accountable to the people and ala Paul Martin can be dismissed A over T in a matter of time. The government may be at times inefficient and wasteful and they may have their bouts with corruption, they wouldn't be capable in this country of brining down the economy due to corporate greed, ridiculous mortgage lending practices, questionable bond ratings and approvals, investment practices and credation approval policies.

I think we've highlighted the major difference between Canada and the US and the many ways it manifests itself in both nations.

Ford didn't take a single penny of government bailout money, despite being 'eligible' to do so. You might want to replace them with Chrysler. As far as I am concerned, Ford is the only US auto company worth it's salt.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

OK, let me be clear here. I have no problem with you thinking the word moron in the title is inappropriate. Have never argued that, am not arguing that.

All I am arguing is your assertion (and fatso's) that because that word was in the title, venom ensued.

My question, which nobody has answered, is how can that argument be made when the people involved in the thread have no feeling about her one way or the other? You've illustrated this in the portion of your last post that I chose to quote above.

I don't feel that my responses have been strong, incited and I certainly don't feel they've been condescending. The emoticons were used to express confusion and bewilderment! If the thread had been about Jarome Iginla, or even Stephen Harper...a person that most people in this forum have at least some opinion about, I would agree with you. But Nancy Pelosi? I just don't see it.

You have continually tried to make something out of my argument that doesn't exist. Whether your post was funny or dead serious is quite irrelevant...it presented an argument that I find very questionable and so I presented my opinion in that light. It is certainly NOT personal. I'm not attacking you, your political views, your posting style or anything else. The only thing I've been trying to discuss is the logic behind assuming that the word moron, when used to descirbe a person that nobody involved in the discussion has revealed anything more positive than neutral opinions on, should be expected to cause nastiness. That's it! Nothing more!

I'm not really sure how we ended up here. I stand by my original (and only) point that using the word 'moron' in the title of a politically oriented thread is innappropriate, and would probably lead to a less-civil debate than if a more appropriate thread title had been used. If you agree with that then we're on the same page. If you don't, then we're not. It seems obviously 'inciteful' to me, but I guess different strokes for different folks.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not really sure how we ended up here. I stand by my original (and only) point that using the word 'moron' in the title of a politically oriented thread is innappropriate, and would probably lead to a less-civil debate than if a more appropriate thread title had been used. If you agree with that then we're on the same page. If you don't, then we're not. It seems obviously 'inciteful' to me, but I guess different strokes for different folks.

Where we differ is that I believe to be inciteful there has to be some basis for an emotional response. If you don't care about Pelosi (you for example) you shouldn't react with venom. (and you didn't.)

So I don't find it inciteful based on the person it was describing. Appropriateness is a whole other issue and I wouldn't argue with you there.

At this point, I'm just hoping someone understands the argument I've made.

[Agamemnon]

Maybe I'll just re-wind here...

Moderator:

Removed some insults and off topic posts; it's been a while since there's been really bad political threads, lets try and keep that streak.

Me;

Kind of tough to keep things civil when the word 'moron' is used in the thread title...

I'm gonna go ahead and just stand by that... I don't think words like 'inciteful' and 'venom' were brought in by me originally, maybe that's a debate you've got with someone else. If the definition of inciteful is 'to cause someone to verbally declare they are incited', then you're right. I guess my definition was more broad, in that 'inciteful' comments can be made, even if no one complains about it or is 'incited'.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I guess you're saying you don't understand the argument.

I'll agree to disagree with you. I don't think the word moron automatically dooms the chance of a thread to be civil.

[Vulcan]

Any body else catch Harper at the Three Amigos meeting when asked about the American healcare issue, saying that our healthcare works being run by our provinces. I took it as a hint to the Amercans to set it up state by state to avoid the controversy of having it run by their national government.

"As you know, Canadians support their health-care system. As for the rest of this question, my only answer is that this is an American debate, and a responsibility of the provinces."

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I guess you're saying you don't understand the argument.

I'll agree to disagree with you. I don't think the word moron automatically dooms the chance of a thread to be civil.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing me up when I said I'd rather discuss this via PM as it's not on-point with the thread (and as another poster can attest, we have politely continued this discussion via PM).

I guess you're saying you don't understand the argument. It has been demonstrated that "moron" is an insult, and one that can only be subjectively applied (i.e. opinion). The point, for me at least, isn't that the use of the word "moron" "automatically dooms" the possibility of civility. You keep insisting on that, when I don't think anyone is arguing it. That may be why it seems to you no one is "refuting your arguments" - because you're mischaracterizing what's being said. What using the word "moron" does do, in my opinion, is set up a tone of opinion and derogatory discussion about the topic-at-hand. It's not fact, and it's not objective; it's entirely subjective and rhetoric based.

Here, if not for the moderation comment, I doubt Agamemnon or I say anything. But it came up, with a warning for everyone to behave. My argument has always been that the mods can't have it both ways. They can't allow those threads to be created with language that could lead to further derogatory language, and then try to control the tone that follows.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I haven't been impolite once. I have an inbox, there's nothing in it. I have only replied to what someone else has posted. It goes both ways.

The only time I brought your name up was to cite something that you had already posted. Nothing more.

In any case, I'm fine with where we're at. Again, pretty sure I've been misunderstood...especially given some of the comments about my offensive style. It seems there are some preconceptions that have impacted how my words are viewed. That's fine too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Any body else catch Harper at the Three Amigos meeting when asked about the American healcare issue, saying that our healthcare works being run by our provinces. I took it as a hint to the Amercans to set it up state by state to avoid the controversy of having it run by their national government.

Which is exactly what I'm saying.

If they want to try public health care, let the states look after it.

[Agamemnon]

NM

PM sent... I guess I'll attempt to be the bigger man here.