Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:20 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:15 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6279
Ask Seniors if they don't like Medicare. My parents and just about all of us will be under that. Is it not government run? Can our system be better run? I know of no one who doesn't think it can be. I would recommend the movie for one reason. The scenes where the American gets hurt in England and what happens and the Americans working in France for French companies and the care that they get. It is worth it just for those two. Why is America so afraid of change? Why would you refuse to watch it? It sheds light on healthcare in other parts of the world.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:54 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Az Bucco fan wrote:
Ask Seniors if they don't like Medicare. My parents and just about all of us will be under that. Is it not government run? Can our system be better run? I know of no one who doesn't think it can be. I would recommend the movie for one reason. The scenes where the American gets hurt in England and what happens and the Americans working in France for French companies and the care that they get. It is worth it just for those two. Why is America so afraid of change? Why would you refuse to watch it? It sheds light on healthcare in other parts of the world.


I've done so well refraining from entering this debate, but dadgummit, here I am.

AZ, I'd challenge you to ask seniors whether or not they like Medicare as you propose. Recent numbers put it somewhere around 75% of seniors are not satisfied with Medicare coverage (and nearly 100% of providers). Further, Medicare is a broken system that, if not repaired soon, will go bankrupt. What about the VA system? It too is in shambles. It is an absolute disgrace the degree of care that our veterans are receiving. By many outcome measures, government ventures in health care have been failures!

I go back to the point I have made here on this board before...do you know why health care costs so much? Because top of the line care is EXPENSIVE! Do you know why other countries spend less on health care? Because they are not invested in top of the line care! The fact is that if you need an MRI, or chemotherapy, or whatever treatment we want to examine, it costs money. A lot of money. Equipment is expensive. Qualified personnel are expensive. There is no getting around it.

So why do other countries have better health care outcomes than the US, if they don't have the high standards of care we have in the US? Its because the American system is disease-focused, not health-focused. As long a we keep cramming twinkies and big macs down our throats, smoking 2 packs a day, and pickling our livers with the finest forms of ethanol that money can buy, we will have higher health care costs and higher mortality than any country in the world. The costs associated with obesity alone are staggering. Gastric bypass surgery, cholesterol meds, blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, and on and on and on. Add on the costs for caring for a heart attack, the bypass surgeries, the catheterizations, the stenting, etc etc etc. The bottom line is that until Americans get off their fat asses and reform their damn diets, the health care system will be a failure. It will go bankrupt, and if the government is foolish enough to enter the field (moreso than they currently have) then our fat assed-ness will bankrupt the government too. The real reform has to be aimed at public health and lowering the demand for care, not for shifting the burden of payment to the government. That makes no sense and solves no problems.

See, I've already lost it and I haven't even addressed Michael Moore's factually incorrect documentary or the health care litigation issue. Gotta stop for now. :evil: :evil: :evil:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6279
I agree with you 100% on causes for the health of America. I see it everyday in my job as a PE teacher. Fast food kills more people than just about anything.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
BBF wrote:
I go back to the point I have made here on this board before...do you know why health care costs so much? Because top of the line care is EXPENSIVE! Do you know why other countries spend less on health care? Because they are not invested in top of the line care! The fact is that if you need an MRI, or chemotherapy, or whatever treatment we want to examine, it costs money. A lot of money. Equipment is expensive. Qualified personnel are expensive. There is no getting around it.

So why do other countries have better health care outcomes than the US, if they don't have the high standards of care we have in the US? Its because the American system is disease-focused, not health-focused. As long a we keep cramming twinkies and big macs down our throats, smoking 2 packs a day, and pickling our livers with the finest forms of ethanol that money can buy, we will have higher health care costs and higher mortality than any country in the world. The costs associated with obesity alone are staggering. Gastric bypass surgery, cholesterol meds, blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, and on and on and on. Add on the costs for caring for a heart attack, the bypass surgeries, the catheterizations, the stenting, etc etc etc. The bottom line is that until Americans get off their fat asses and reform their damn diets, the health care system will be a failure. It will go bankrupt, and if the government is foolish enough to enter the field (moreso than they currently have) then our fat assed-ness will bankrupt the government too. The real reform has to be aimed at public health and lowering the demand for care, not for shifting the burden of payment to the government. That makes no sense and solves no problems.

While I agree with you that a greater focus should be placed on public health and lowering the demand for health care, that does not address the bad behavior of insurance companies. When a health insurance policy holder is faced with a serious health crisis, such as having to pay for chemotherapy or a bone-marrow transplant, that policy holder should be able to rely on his insurance company upholding its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as has been evinced by the thousands of people who have been denied care due to their health insurance companies finding unjustifiable ways to avoid paying coverage.

When health insurance companies are making money hand-over-fist while being unresponsive to the needs of their policy holders, it leads me to believe that there is a lack of competition in the sector. I find it very hard to believe that a health insurance company cannot make a profit while fulfilling its obligations to its policy holders. Further, there is clearly a market for people who cannot afford health insurance as it is currently being offered to them. Therefore, it is my opinion that if private insurance companies are not going to offer more competitive health insurance plans while upholding their obligations to their clients, then there is little problem with a non-profit, independently-operated, non-taxpayer-funded, public entity filling that void.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
While I agree with you that a greater focus should be placed on public health and lowering the demand for health care, that does not address the bad behavior of insurance companies. When a health insurance policy holder is faced with a serious health crisis, such as having to pay for chemotherapy or a bone-marrow transplant, that policy holder should be able to rely on his insurance company upholding its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as has been evinced by the thousands of people who have been denied care due to their health insurance companies finding unjustifiable ways to avoid paying coverage.

When health insurance companies are making money hand-over-fist while being unresponsive to the needs of their policy holders, it leads me to believe that there is a lack of competition in the sector. I find it very hard to believe that a health insurance company cannot make a profit while fulfilling its obligations to its policy holders. Further, there is clearly a market for people who cannot afford health insurance as it is currently being offered to them. Therefore, it is my opinion that if private insurance companies are not going to offer more competitive health insurance plans while upholding their obligations to their clients, then there is little problem with a non-profit, independently-operated, non-taxpayer-funded, public entity filling that void.


Wilton, I agree with this statement right up until the end. Why don't we concentrate on fixing the insurance problem as opposed to the healthcare problem? Lets focus on providing some sort of competition for the insurance companies to balance out the coverage rather than wrecking the whole system. The system is flawed without question, but throwing government into a flawed situation is setting a scary precident. In the future, lazy Americans will come to rely on the government to provide all their needs. Why work and pay for healthcare when the government will just give it to you?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:46 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
Willton wrote:
BBF wrote:
I go back to the point I have made here on this board before...do you know why health care costs so much? Because top of the line care is EXPENSIVE! Do you know why other countries spend less on health care? Because they are not invested in top of the line care! The fact is that if you need an MRI, or chemotherapy, or whatever treatment we want to examine, it costs money. A lot of money. Equipment is expensive. Qualified personnel are expensive. There is no getting around it.

So why do other countries have better health care outcomes than the US, if they don't have the high standards of care we have in the US? Its because the American system is disease-focused, not health-focused. As long a we keep cramming twinkies and big macs down our throats, smoking 2 packs a day, and pickling our livers with the finest forms of ethanol that money can buy, we will have higher health care costs and higher mortality than any country in the world. The costs associated with obesity alone are staggering. Gastric bypass surgery, cholesterol meds, blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, and on and on and on. Add on the costs for caring for a heart attack, the bypass surgeries, the catheterizations, the stenting, etc etc etc. The bottom line is that until Americans get off their fat asses and reform their damn diets, the health care system will be a failure. It will go bankrupt, and if the government is foolish enough to enter the field (moreso than they currently have) then our fat assed-ness will bankrupt the government too. The real reform has to be aimed at public health and lowering the demand for care, not for shifting the burden of payment to the government. That makes no sense and solves no problems.

While I agree with you that a greater focus should be placed on public health and lowering the demand for health care, that does not address the bad behavior of insurance companies. When a health insurance policy holder is faced with a serious health crisis, such as having to pay for chemotherapy or a bone-marrow transplant, that policy holder should be able to rely on his insurance company upholding its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as has been evinced by the thousands of people who have been denied care due to their health insurance companies finding unjustifiable ways to avoid paying coverage.

When health insurance companies are making money hand-over-fist while being unresponsive to the needs of their policy holders, it leads me to believe that there is a lack of competition in the sector. I find it very hard to believe that a health insurance company cannot make a profit while fulfilling its obligations to its policy holders. Further, there is clearly a market for people who cannot afford health insurance as it is currently being offered to them. Therefore, it is my opinion that if private insurance companies are not going to offer more competitive health insurance plans while upholding their obligations to their clients, then there is little problem with a non-profit, independently-operated, non-taxpayer-funded, public entity filling that void.


I absolutely agree that there are problems within the health insurance industry. Things like not covering pre-existing conditions, etc. in addition to reasons you cite. The thing is (and I am getting away from my area of expertise) that insurance companies are subject to territorial restrictions. For instance, I believe there are only 3 companies permitted to sell health insurance in western PA, and they are limited to that area. So, it seems if the belief is that we need more competition, why not open up the health insurance markets? Allow me (or my employer) to choose from whatever company offers the lowest rate, not just one of 3 companies in W. PA. I don't understand the desire to create a new "competitor" when we don't even let the existing companies compete.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:32 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
BBF wrote:
I don't understand the desire to create a new "competitor" when we don't even let the existing companies compete.


The cynical side of me has an easy answer for this, because it creates a whole new class of people dependent on government handouts, a class of people who will be inclined to vote for a certain political party.

The practical side of me has slightly more difficulty, because people who have good intentions rush to affix bandaids to an amputated leg.

The intellectual side of me could write volumes of what I think. But I won't. All I'll say is this, I'm a firm beleiver that the government will NEVER be able to match the open market when it comes to quality. They have the quantity thing down pat though. America is the cutting edge of medidal techologies. That costs money. We pay for it, not Canada, not the UK, and not Sweden. When Ted Kennedy, was on death's door, did he count on Massachusett's government sponsored plan for treatment?

In 15 or 20 years, after the government has had time to drive private insurance out, and don't for once think that isn't the ultimate goal, I'm sure many people (not me though - I'll be busy trying to figure out how to withdrawl my 401k funds without paying 50% tax) will be clamoring for something to be done about the lapse in technological breakthroughs. And as sure as God made green apples, they'll be pulling the lever for the candidate who has promised a new government body whose function will be developing these technologies. And the vicious cycle will continue.


Last edited by Argentum on Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:35 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
Willton wrote:
Therefore, it is my opinion that if private insurance companies are not going to offer more competitive health insurance plans while upholding their obligations to their clients, then there is little problem with a non-profit, independently-operated, non-taxpayer-funded, public entity filling that void.


Yeah, but that entity is not the one being pushed. But I do agree with this.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
Quote:
While I agree with you that a greater focus should be placed on public health and lowering the demand for health care, that does not address the bad behavior of insurance companies. When a health insurance policy holder is faced with a serious health crisis, such as having to pay for chemotherapy or a bone-marrow transplant, that policy holder should be able to rely on his insurance company upholding its end of the bargain. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as has been evinced by the thousands of people who have been denied care due to their health insurance companies finding unjustifiable ways to avoid paying coverage.

When health insurance companies are making money hand-over-fist while being unresponsive to the needs of their policy holders, it leads me to believe that there is a lack of competition in the sector. I find it very hard to believe that a health insurance company cannot make a profit while fulfilling its obligations to its policy holders. Further, there is clearly a market for people who cannot afford health insurance as it is currently being offered to them. Therefore, it is my opinion that if private insurance companies are not going to offer more competitive health insurance plans while upholding their obligations to their clients, then there is little problem with a non-profit, independently-operated, non-taxpayer-funded, public entity filling that void.


Wilton, I agree with this statement right up until the end. Why don't we concentrate on fixing the insurance problem as opposed to the healthcare problem? Lets focus on providing some sort of competition for the insurance companies to balance out the coverage rather than wrecking the whole system. The system is flawed without question, but throwing government into a flawed situation is setting a scary precident. In the future, lazy Americans will come to rely on the government to provide all their needs. Why work and pay for healthcare when the government will just give it to you?

Because the government option, while being cheaper, still costs money, and it probably would not cover as much as what a private insurer would offer. Under the proposal as I understand it, a government agency offering health insurance would operate as a financially independent agency, much like the Federal Reserve or the US Patent and Trademark Office. While it would not be concerned with profits, it would still have to pay its workers through the fees that it charges. And because it would charge lower fees than a private insurer would, the level of health care coverage that it offers would likely be lower than what a private insurer would offer.

So why work and pay for health care? Because I would want better coverage that what the government offers. But if I can't afford to pay the private insurer's premiums because my work does not pay me enough, then I can at least choose what a government agency can offer because it is cheaper.

Look, I'm not saying that the government option is the way to go, but it's better than the status quo. I'm all for the removal of terratorial (sp?) restraints on health insurance companies, and I'd further like it if individual health care policies were given equal treatment compared to employer-based policies from a tax standpoint. But if that does not get the job done, something must. I'd rather Congress pass a government option bill than pass nothing.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
Look, I'm not saying that the government option is the way to go, but it's better than the status quo. I'm all for the removal of terratorial (sp?) restraints on health insurance companies, and I'd further like it if individual health care policies were given equal treatment compared to employer-based policies from a tax standpoint. But if that does not get the job done, something must. I'd rather Congress pass a government option bill than pass nothing.


What I am afraid of is that a particular party is more concerned with passing a bill because they have the majority opposed to actually caring about how it will affect the citizens of this great country. The Dems have been promoting this system for many years now and it seems like they now have their best shot to get it through and that's just what they plan on doing. Who cares about what it actually says or what kinds of results it produces. Even if it does produce poor results can just spin those facts away just like the stimulus bill that hasn't really done much to help the economy.

My questions are:
Is the healthcare bill EVERYTHING we need? Or is loaded with a bunch of pork to help line the pockets of constituants on both sides of the isle.
Why can't we fix things instead of blowing the whole thing up? What happens if we blow it all up and then it doesn't work? Then what?

I am tired of both parties at this point. When will we get politicians that will actually represent our interests, let us decide on how to make it through life? This selction has produced the worst Presidency I have ever seen and long after Obama is gone, he will be viewed as the worst President this country ever elected.

1. Our status around the world is that of weakness
2. We are investigating our own intelligence network that thrives on secrecy, so now how do we get information to protect ourselves
3. We've gone into massive amounts of debt, much of which is owed to the Chinese (of all countries). Sorry I forgot, that's all Bush's fault(how long does that excuse get its play)
4. We have basically told all terrorists that if we capture you, you won't have to give us any information and we will put you up at the Waldorf Astoria to make sure you are comfortable.
5. We have a President and a Congress that ensures that race IS an issue(i.e. "Historic First Black President), hiring black militant communists to fill vital roles inside the government. We spend much of our life trying to blend the colors so we see only one, and this President ensures that those race lines are clearly marked.
6. We've elected a chearleader who plays the media markets like an instrument(except for Fox which he avoids like the plague)

I could go on and on, but don't get me wrong Dems and Republicans are BOTH to blame for these current situations that we find ourselves in.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6279
Piratefan13 wrote:
I could go on and on, but don't get me wrong Dems and Republicans are BOTH to blame for these current situations that we find ourselves in.

Agreed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:54 pm
Posts: 6208
Location: Keystone State
I actually think health insurance should be available for everyone, but I don't like the public option. I am all for helping people who can't help themselves, but I really think too many people take advantage of the current system and would do the same. The bottom line is people need to decide to be healthier and health care will become less expensive. But in our fast food world, that ain't happening.

_________________
The Bucs are going all the way, all the way this year!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
What I am afraid of is that a particular party is more concerned with passing a bill because they have the majority opposed to actually caring about how it will affect the citizens of this great country. The Dems have been promoting this system for many years now and it seems like they now have their best shot to get it through and that's just what they plan on doing. Who cares about what it actually says or what kinds of results it produces. Even if it does produce poor results can just spin those facts away just like the stimulus bill that hasn't really done much to help the economy.

Perhaps you should actually read the proposed health care bills before proclaiming anything regarding "what it actually says or what kinds of results it produces," let alone what "Dems have been promoting".

Quote:
My questions are:
Is the healthcare bill EVERYTHING we need? Or is loaded with a bunch of pork to help line the pockets of constituants on both sides of the isle.
Why can't we fix things instead of blowing the whole thing up? What happens if we blow it all up and then it doesn't work? Then what?

Perhaps those questions would be answered if you actually read the proposed bills.

Quote:
I am tired of both parties at this point. When will we get politicians that will actually represent our interests, let us decide on how to make it through life? This selction has produced the worst Presidency I have ever seen and long after Obama is gone, he will be viewed as the worst President this country ever elected.

Oh horseshit. What has President Obama done that is so objectionable as to render him "the worst President this country ever elected"?

Quote:
1. Our status around the world is that of weakness
2. We are investigating our own intelligence network that thrives on secrecy, so now how do we get information to protect ourselves
3. We've gone into massive amounts of debt, much of which is owed to the Chinese (of all countries). Sorry I forgot, that's all Bush's fault(how long does that excuse get its play)
4. We have basically told all terrorists that if we capture you, you won't have to give us any information and we will put you up at the Waldorf Astoria to make sure you are comfortable.
5. We have a President and a Congress that ensures that race IS an issue(i.e. "Historic First Black President), hiring black militant communists to fill vital roles inside the government. We spend much of our life trying to blend the colors so we see only one, and this President ensures that those race lines are clearly marked.
6. We've elected a chearleader who plays the media markets like an instrument(except for Fox which he avoids like the plague)

1. No, our status around the world is that of stupidity and self-righteousness.
2. I suppose you would have the CIA go unchecked? Should the CIA be free to run amok across the world at the whim of its director? If you want to see what happens to a sector that is given a lot of power with no one overseeing its business for a long period of time, feel free to take a look at Wall Street. The only problem is that with the CIA, the consequences can be even graver.
3. That "excuse" gets play for as long as the War in Iraq goes on, as we are continually tallying up the expense sheets of that war (which was conveniently left off of the federal budget during the Bush presidency). Going to war in a Middle Eastern country while instituting a $350 billion tax cut at home is one of the most fiscally irresponsible things a President can do, and Bush did it.
4. That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists. To think that a ban on torture would lead to cushy interrogation is a leap of logic only idiots like Glenn Beck would make.
5. Hiring black people to fill government roles is not making race an issue. People who comment on such hirings are the ones that are making race an issue.
6. Wow, you are really reaching in order to criticize the President.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Quote:
1. No, our status around the world is that of stupidity and self-righteousness.
2. I suppose you would have the CIA go unchecked? Should the CIA be free to run amok across the world at the whim of its director? If you want to see what happens to a sector that is given a lot of power with no one overseeing its business for a long period of time, feel free to take a look at Wall Street. The only problem is that with the CIA, the consequences can be even graver.
3. That "excuse" gets play for as long as the War in Iraq goes on, as we are continually tallying up the expense sheets of that war (which was conveniently left off of the federal budget during the Bush presidency). Going to war in a Middle Eastern country while instituting a $350 billion tax cut at home is one of the most fiscally irresponsible things a President can do, and Bush did it.
4. That is the most nonsensical thing I've heard regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists. To think that a ban on torture would lead to cushy interrogation is a leap of logic only idiots like Glenn Beck would make.
5. Hiring black people to fill government roles is not making race an issue. People who comment on such hirings are the ones that are making race an issue.
6. Wow, you are really reaching in order to criticize the President.


1. Yes, NOW it is of stupidity and self-righteousness

2. Within every government there is a necessity for an agency that works secretly and works outside the normal procedures to ensure that any information that is available for the protection of this country, is obtained. To belive that a country does not need this type of agency shows that you are just as naive as the rest that criticize the CIA. If leader of the organization is promoting his own agenda, then you get rid of him, you don't cripple our intelligence officers in the field, and you certainly don't limit their abilities to gather intel. Its obvious that you have never served your country or can even fathom the importance of intelligence to keep our troops safe, much of which is gathered by the CIA. I can't wait till we tell a mother who loses her son or daughter in war that we weren't informed enough because we weren't allowed to torture a prisoner. Screw that! When I joined the military, it was understood that if captured, we could be tortured, so I'm sure that our opposition knows this as well. Its people like you that make me so angry, you think we can sit over here in America and mind our own business and be nice to everyone. Dude half the world hates us, and its not because of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or even Carter. They hate our freedoms, our ideals, our way of life and the more this new administration changes that and takes away our rights, the more that the half of the world that hates us, wins. Wilton, your an extremely smart individual, much more schooled and intelligent than I, that is what boggles my mind, that you just don't get it. The world is a terrible place, there will never be peace, the only peace is when we are holding down tyranny with our fist.

3. The "war" excuse is a talking point(to which you always accuse me of using in arguments), a CNN, leftist, talking point. Do you remember in your school books what was the actual reason for getting out of depression? It was WWII, that is what helped industry and put people to work again. Sure the war in Iraq costs money, but its also keeping much of America employed. It sounds sad to say but if we don't go to war or concentrate on protecting ourselves as a nation, what would you need all the defense contractors for? Furthermore, if the "war" was costing us so much and putting us in debt, then why didn't Obama stop it upon election? Like he said while running? Because he knows that we cannot leave that region unattended. The stimulus bill was a load of crap to help "pay off" all of the organizations that helped him get elected. I read some of the plan... what a load of s***.

4. Torture in the sense that we have done it as a nation is not even close to as bad as what terrorists have done. It is an essential part of gaining intel to protect our troops and our citizens, if these guys didn't want to be tortured, they should have stayed our of the terror business. Secondly, terrorists are not afforded rights under the Geneva convention because they do not claim to be of any nation.

5. Don't you try to lay me out as the racist. I SAID THAT the President hired a MILITANT black leader to a high position in the government. A MILITANT black man who blames "whitey" for holding them down. He can go screw himself.

6. The President makes it very easy. I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually felt safer under Clinton... thats a huge statement for me.

Finally, did YOU read all 1000 pages of garbage in the healthcare plan? So don't use that as an argument point if you haven't read it either. That just means that you don't really know what you believe either.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:50 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Pirtaefan-- you seem to have a lot of hate built up inside you that you don't mind sharing. Why so angry?

The point you make about torture is simply unamerican. You can try to hide behind the patriotic flag but our principles don't change. In torturing people we lose ourselves.

What do we gain? If I were being tortured, I would tell you what I thought you wanted to hear so that the pain would stop. Wouldn't matter if it were true or not. Never in our history have we accepted torture as a legitimate technique of information gathering. No, we Americans were and are above the inhuman treatment of others. It has nothing to do with service to our country, but more to living by our standards which as you properly suggest are the envy of the world. So, you want to give that up to save what? You just can't eat your cake and have it too.

Don't you realize that the (civilian) Dick Chenney way has been determined by most Americans as the wrong way. Ask General Colin Powell or any other General in our military today.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5809
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
BBF wrote:
the health care litigation issue. Gotta stop for now. :evil: :evil: :evil:


Having worked on the defense side of doctors and hospitals, I find myself somewhat amused at "lines of crap" that are being fed to us by medical malpractice insurance companies. They are great at the blame game. Look at the stats: Lawsuits actually filed/numbers are down; Verdict amounts/down; Settlement amounts/down; Medical Malpractice Premiums/Way Up. Stock value of medical malpractice carriers/way up.

Hmmmmmm. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Also . . . look at who owns or runs most of the medical malpractice insurance businesses. You might be surprised and it might make you question the credibility of their statements.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
No. 9 wrote:
Also . . . look at who owns or runs most of the medical malpractice insurance businesses. You might be surprised and it might make you question the credibility of their statements.


Lawyers?

:)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:19 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
No. 9 wrote:
BBF wrote:
the health care litigation issue. Gotta stop for now. :evil: :evil: :evil:


Having worked on the defense side of doctors and hospitals, I find myself somewhat amused at "lines of crap" that are being fed to us by medical malpractice insurance companies. They are great at the blame game. Look at the stats: Lawsuits actually filed/numbers are down; Verdict amounts/down; Settlement amounts/down; Medical Malpractice Premiums/Way Up. Stock value of medical malpractice carriers/way up.

Hmmmmmm. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Also . . . look at who owns or runs most of the medical malpractice insurance businesses. You might be surprised and it might make you question the credibility of their statements.


I'd like to hear you speculate on the reasons for the numbers being down, if you would. Its not a trap, just asking. Because while the verdicts may be down, I can tell you the number of unnecessary tests driven by fear of lawsuits is going strong. So while insurance premiums are a burden (and I tend to agree that the Medmal insurance companies are a large part of the problem), the bigger problems are doctors over-treating patients to avoid lawsuits.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Soapbox Time
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
1. Yes, NOW it is of stupidity and self-righteousness

2. Within every government there is a necessity for an agency that works secretly and works outside the normal procedures to ensure that any information that is available for the protection of this country, is obtained. To belive that a country does not need this type of agency shows that you are just as naive as the rest that criticize the CIA. If leader of the organization is promoting his own agenda, then you get rid of him, you don't cripple our intelligence officers in the field, and you certainly don't limit their abilities to gather intel. Its obvious that you have never served your country or can even fathom the importance of intelligence to keep our troops safe, much of which is gathered by the CIA. I can't wait till we tell a mother who loses her son or daughter in war that we weren't informed enough because we weren't allowed to torture a prisoner. Screw that! When I joined the military, it was understood that if captured, we could be tortured, so I'm sure that our opposition knows this as well. Its people like you that make me so angry, you think we can sit over here in America and mind our own business and be nice to everyone. Dude half the world hates us, and its not because of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or even Carter. They hate our freedoms, our ideals, our way of life and the more this new administration changes that and takes away our rights, the more that the half of the world that hates us, wins. Wilton, your an extremely smart individual, much more schooled and intelligent than I, that is what boggles my mind, that you just don't get it. The world is a terrible place, there will never be peace, the only peace is when we are holding down tyranny with our fist.

3. The "war" excuse is a talking point(to which you always accuse me of using in arguments), a CNN, leftist, talking point. Do you remember in your school books what was the actual reason for getting out of depression? It was WWII, that is what helped industry and put people to work again. Sure the war in Iraq costs money, but its also keeping much of America employed. It sounds sad to say but if we don't go to war or concentrate on protecting ourselves as a nation, what would you need all the defense contractors for? Furthermore, if the "war" was costing us so much and putting us in debt, then why didn't Obama stop it upon election? Like he said while running? Because he knows that we cannot leave that region unattended. The stimulus bill was a load of crap to help "pay off" all of the organizations that helped him get elected. I read some of the plan... what a load of s***.

4. Torture in the sense that we have done it as a nation is not even close to as bad as what terrorists have done. It is an essential part of gaining intel to protect our troops and our citizens, if these guys didn't want to be tortured, they should have stayed our of the terror business. Secondly, terrorists are not afforded rights under the Geneva convention because they do not claim to be of any nation.

5. Don't you try to lay me out as the racist. I SAID THAT the President hired a MILITANT black leader to a high position in the government. A MILITANT black man who blames "whitey" for holding them down. He can go screw himself.

6. The President makes it very easy. I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually felt safer under Clinton... thats a huge statement for me.


1. And you can thank your good buddy George W. Bush for that.

2. Way to swing at a straw man. I never said that we did not need the CIA; what I'm saying is that the CIA should be held accountable for its actions. When you stop making shit up is when we can have a reasoned discussion about this.

As for the torture part, I concur with AZBF: torture is unethical, ineffective, and overall un-American. Just because our enemies may torture does not mean that we should stoop to their level. Otherwise you turn your back on all that you deem to be great about the U.S.A. just so that you can cause another great pain. But more to the point: the fact that torture is no longer an option does not eviscerate our ability to gather intelligence. Just because torture is the only way you know how to extract information from someone does not mean that a highly-skilled spy or CIA agent does not know of more effective ways to do so.

Oh, and by the way, stop using your military background as a way of claiming that you are better than everyone who has not served. It's conceited.

3. Justifying the War in Iraq as a way of employing people in the U.S. is quite possibly one of the more vile things I've ever heard. I'm sure the families of all the soldiers who died in Iraq will take great solace in the idea that Bush started a war of choice that risked the lives of their children so that defense contractors could get paid.

I'm well aware of how WWII brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression. However, that was a war of necessity. Countries were asking the U.S. to get involved and help out countries that were being oppressed by Hitler, and then the Japanese forced Roosevelt's hand by bombing Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The War in Iraq is a far, FAR different situation: we were never attacked by Iraq, no one asked us to enter Iraq, and yet we went anyway. Oh, and last I checked, we were not in a horrible depression in 2003. Trying to compare the War in Iraq to WWII shows a lack of historical knowledge on your part.

I'll let you in on a little secret: the federal government makes most of the money through income taxes, and those taxes are used to fund things like a U.S. military and their ventures into the theater of war. But when the President signs a $350 billion tax cut into law, that limits the amount of money he can use to pay for such things, thereby forcing him to borrow even more money from foreign countries (read: China) to fund his whimsical war.

"If we don't go to war or concentrate on protecting ourselves as a nation, what would you need all the defense contractors for?" Indeed, what would we need them for? Why pay them at all? Why not stop contracting the Lockheed Martins of the world to make so many things that only soldiers can use, and instead drive them to create or invent things that civilians can use? Why is it a good idea for the government to start a war with another country just to justify all the money it pays to defense contractors?

4. Torture has never been an essential part of intelligence gathering. On the contrary, it has been deemed by many in the field of intelligence as being ineffective (i.e., the one being tortured will say anything to make the pain stop) and more dangerous than beneficial (i.e., it endangers our troops by encouraging reciprocity). This has nothing to do with the legal rights of terrorists, whether under the Geneva Convention or otherwise. This is merely pointing out that there are more effective ways to extract information from someone than torture. The notion that torture is an effective way of gathering intelligence is a myth, plain and simple.

And please, don't give me the nonsense of "They do it; so should we." You're basically saying that we should become just like terrorists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we fighting them because we disagree with them? Why does it make sense to emulate the people we despise?

5. The fact of the matter is that you are still focusing on the fact that the man is black. Otherwise you would just call him "a MILITANT leader" or "a MILITANT man," or something of that nature. Clearly the fact that said person is black resonates with you; if Obama had appointed a white civil rights activist to a similar position, I wonder if you would have the same feelings.

Clearly you are talking about Van Jones, but I have yet to see anything regarding him "blaming whitey" for anything while he held office or any time near then.

Piratefan13 wrote:
Finally, did YOU read all 1000 pages of garbage in the healthcare plan? So don't use that as an argument point if you haven't read it either. That just means that you don't really know what you believe either.

You're right: I haven't read any of the health care bills. But then, I'm not the one using hyperbole to proclaim what he thinks is probably in the bill. Instead of making uneducated guesses as to what is in the health care bill, why don't you read it and learn about what is actually being proposed? It would just seem to me that if you're so damn afraid of what the Dems may be proposing, then perhaps you would like to take the time to learn what they are actually proposing.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits