Quote:
Huh... A "transition process" to get us to eliminate employer coverage in favor of a government funded pool of coverage?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're not all idiots here
We're not all idiots hereFollow
This has been gone over before. The goal is to make it so that employers don't have to fund the employee insurance anymore so that the individuals have more choice.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
publiusvarus wrote:
Xarus,
That's exactly what they're going to be doing;
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamacare-requires-mandatory-end-of.html
Quote:
And only in bizarro Gbaji land would the government start telling the counselors to convince people to let themselves die.
That's exactly what they're going to be doing;
Quote:
More bad news for America’s golden generation. The nation’s seniors are going to be offered mandatory end-of-life counseling according to page 425 to page 430 of the healthcare bill. That’s right, the government is going require Senior Citizens to go through counseling shortly before they die. Now, I ask you why would you need to offer end-of-life counseling to senior citizens?
Could it be because they aren’t going to get healthcare in the end, so they need to be informed of death options like the State of Oregon offered Barbara Wagner when Oregon’s state run system rationed care and denied her treatment for her cancer. In case you haven’t heard the story, the State of Oregon denied cancer treatment but offered physician-assisted suicide for Wagner. This is clearly a sign of the coming healthcare rationing that will occur under Obama’s reckless plan.
Could it be because they aren’t going to get healthcare in the end, so they need to be informed of death options like the State of Oregon offered Barbara Wagner when Oregon’s state run system rationed care and denied her treatment for her cancer. In case you haven’t heard the story, the State of Oregon denied cancer treatment but offered physician-assisted suicide for Wagner. This is clearly a sign of the coming healthcare rationing that will occur under Obama’s reckless plan.
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamacare-requires-mandatory-end-of.html
God you're stupid.
varus you're citing wild inaccurate speculation as a source. Come on.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
publiusvarus wrote:
[quote] Now, I ask you why would you need to offer end-of-life counseling to senior citizens?
Could it be because they aren’t going to get healthcare in the end
Could it be because they aren’t going to get healthcare in the end
Good question. Is it because of that? Or is it just being insinuated to try and get a rise?
You know, I think the problem is the incorrect placement of "mandatory." What the listed section actually says is mandatory is that Medicare cover the expense. Previously the expense wasn't under Medicare; now it is mandatory that they pay for the expense. The consultations themselves are voluntary, and do not encourage the elderly to off themselves
Edited, Aug 20th 2009 4:31pm by LockeColeMA
Maybe the end-of-life counseling is because they're planning on using the elderly for soylent green. I'm ok with that.
Nadenu,
You might be right. God knows we're not getting any definitions of "end-of-life counseling" from congress or the president.
Quote:
Maybe the end-of-life counseling is because they're planning on using the elderly for soylent green. I'm ok with that.
You might be right. God knows we're not getting any definitions of "end-of-life counseling" from congress or the president.
publiusvarus wrote:
You might be right. God knows we're not getting any definitions of "end-of-life counseling" from congress or the president.
Because only a special group of idiots would manage to misconstrue what that means.
publiusvarus wrote:
Nadenu,
You might be right. God knows we're not getting any definitions of "end-of-life counseling" from congress or the president.
Quote:
Maybe the end-of-life counseling is because they're planning on using the elderly for soylent green. I'm ok with that.
You might be right. God knows we're not getting any definitions of "end-of-life counseling" from congress or the president.
Oh, I know what the counseling is for. You don't. So shut up.
Zieveraar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. That would be selfish. But that's not why conservatives oppose socialized medicine.
I've yet to hear a single valid reason why socialized medicine is not a good thing.
Then you are either not listening to what conservatives actually say or have decided that their views are automatically invalid. Not sure which, but here's an article on the subject. Yes, Joph. It's from the "Free Republic" website (derogatorily called "freepers" by those on the left). Again. I just did a google search for "conservative reasons to oppose socialized medicine" and this was the first non-issue specific page I ran into.
While there is a bit of snark in there, you'll note that he espouses the *exact* same arguments I have for years about what rights are, how they operate in a society, and how providing goods and services isn't actually providing a right.
Do you need me to punch the search keys for you? Is it really that hard for you to go out and find out for yourself why people oppose socialized medicine? Or is it just easier to assume that your own reasons for supporting it are "good", so therefore any reason to oppose it must be "bad"? What's the saying about a mind being like a parachute? Perhaps if you open yourself to alternative viewpoints you might just find that other people have very good reasons for arriving at different conclusions than you do.
Quote:
The only definition that would seem to fit the whole idea of "socialism" as some Americans see it, and are supported in thinking this by a fair amount of politicians would be communism, not any other idea whatsoever, no transition at all.
Um... Whatever. All I did was show two things:
1. That the author of the article was doing exactly what he accused others of doing (playing with the meaning of a label to support his own position).
2. That according to a pretty standard source for definitions, what Obama supports in terms of health care reform does match the definition of "socialist".
If you want to use different labels, you're free to do so. Let's call an ideology that desires to put the government in control of the means of production and distribution of goods "Frank". That's the new label "Frank". Well, guess what? Obama wants us to adopt the "Frank" agenda.
See how the label doesn't matter? It's what he's doing that people oppose. They don't want the government pushing private payers out of the health care market. That is what the Dem's proposal will do. Thus, they oppose it. Doesn't matter what we call that. It's what they oppose and it's what the Dems want. Thus, they are correct in their opposition. Everything else is just obfuscation of the issue.
Quote:
You can argue just what part of socialism this whole health program exactly is, it isn't seen as such nor argued against it as such. Politicians tend to score best with simplicity I suppose.
Doesn't matter. The things that the Dems want to do are what most Americans oppose. What we call it doesn't matter. Do you see that?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
And, gbaji, there is a world of difference between a "death panel" and a "death advisory board." If you can't see the difference, I pity you.
Yes. I propose we call them "Death Policy Documentarians". That's catchy, right? ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Doesn't matter. The things that the Dems want to do are what most Americans oppose. What we call it doesn't matter. Do you see that?
I think Gbaji, that the valid criticisms that are being raised are being completely blown away by the absurd and ridiculous talking points like death panels et al. This is why I'm really surprised you'd give them any credence. Sure you can make a comparison, but you can compare almost anything, it doesn't make it helpful. You have a tendency to be an apologist for positions that really hurt your cause. You usually preface them by admitting they're overblown, but it still hurts your position.
Edited, Aug 20th 2009 3:48pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Not sure which, but here's an article on the subject. Yes, Joph. It's from the "Free Republic" website (derogatorily called "freepers" by those on the left).
Hey, when you get down off your cross and dry your tear-streaked cheeks, you might want to know that "Freepers" is what they call themselves.
But I suppose you think it helps your cause when you play the poor widdle martyr.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Doesn't matter. The things that the Dems want to do are what most Americans oppose. What we call it doesn't matter. Do you see that?
Edited, Aug 20th 2009 3:48pm by Xsarus
Quite odd isn't it? Rather puzzling.
Apparently a lot of people suddenly decide democracy isn't what they want after all.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure which, but here's an article on the subject. Yes, Joph. It's from the "Free Republic" website (derogatorily called "freepers" by those on the left).
Hey, when you get down off your cross and dry your tear-streaked cheeks, you might want to know that "Freepers" is what they call themselves.
But I suppose you think it helps your cause when you play the poor widdle martyr.
Good thing I'm just a shill who gets all my information from conservative blog sites though.
How many times have I said that I don't frequent these sites? I don't get my information from these sites. I don't form my opinions from these sites. So forgive me if I assumed based on the way you've used the term "freepers" that this was a derogatory label applied to them. You've certainly used it that way in the past...
Do you believe me now? Lol...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
you've certainly cited articles from there often for someone who doesn't frequent that site.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
I'm just a shill who gets all my information from conservative blog sites though.
Agreed.
Quote:
I assumed based on the way you've used the term "freepers" that this was a derogatory label applied to them. You've certainly used it that way in the past...
Well, hey, the ***** called themselves *****, right?
Quote:
Do you believe me now? Lol...
That you don't hang out on Free Republic? Sure. Never claimed you did. I said you get your information from AM radio pundits, Fox News and various blogs. Which you've shown to be the case times enough in the past. Or did you "accidentally" stumble into the Odinga conspiracy theory?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Zieveraar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. That would be selfish. But that's not why conservatives oppose socialized medicine.
I've yet to hear a single valid reason why socialized medicine is not a good thing.
Then you are either not listening to what conservatives actually say or have decided that their views are automatically invalid. Not sure which, but here's an article on the subject. Yes, Joph. It's from the "Free Republic" website (derogatorily called "freepers" by those on the left). Again. I just did a google search for "conservative reasons to oppose socialized medicine" and this was the first non-issue specific page I ran into.
While there is a bit of snark in there, you'll note that he espouses the *exact* same arguments I have for years about what rights are, how they operate in a society, and how providing goods and services isn't actually providing a right.
Do you need me to punch the search keys for you? Is it really that hard for you to go out and find out for yourself why people oppose socialized medicine? Or is it just easier to assume that your own reasons for supporting it are "good", so therefore any reason to oppose it must be "bad"? What's the saying about a mind being like a parachute? Perhaps if you open yourself to alternative viewpoints you might just find that other people have very good reasons for arriving at different conclusions than you do.
I'll repeat myself though: give me a single valid reason why socialzed medicine is not a good thing.
Anyone that can read, and keeps an open mind about things which I agree with you is important, will know that the article you link is no good.
We can't have socialized medicine as this would 'force' doctors to treat patients. Can't have that ofcourse, that would infringe on their rights. Somehow anyway.
Socialized medicine somehow always means long waiting lists and forcing patients to go to a doctor even if they don't want to go to that doctor.
Right, except that it doesn't somehow in several countries that have socialized medicine.
Doctors seem to be pretty enthousiastic here in Belgium. Never mind the fact that Belgium plays a fair role in a lot of fields of medicine. (heart surgery for instance, virus research too for that matter)
And yes, most of them are not government personnel for some reason.
Quote:
A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action
Right, so babies have no rights as they are not capable to perform a sovereign action?
Quote:
1. That the author of the article was doing exactly what he accused others of doing (playing with the meaning of a label to support his own position).
Agreed, no argument there.
Quote:
2. That according to a pretty standard source for definitions, what Obama supports in terms of health care reform does match the definition of "socialist".
Yet it is not the definition of socialism which is accepted by a lot of people in America, they see it as plain old communism as the USSR had, nothing else.
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
I'll repeat myself though: give me a single valid reason why socialzed medicine is not a good thing.
Private industry can do it better.
But... it obviously can't. It's not. It is a horrible system.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
I'll repeat myself though: give me a single valid reason why socialzed medicine is not a good thing.
Private industry can do it better.
But... it obviously can't. It's not. It is a horrible system.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Then you are either not listening to what conservatives actually say or have decided that their views are automatically invalid. Not sure which, but here's an article on the subject.
Public option. Public option. Option.
You know what "option" means, right? You will still have private health care. You will still have private doctors. Pharmaceutical companies will still sell drugs. They will still make huge profits. They will still invest it in research for the most commercially viable drugs. None of this will change.
The whole premise of that article was a blatant, deliberate intellectually dishonest falsehood.
So yeah, well done. I can why you'd like it.
publiusvarus wrote:
Private industry can do it better.
It could also drop down to a high of 0 tomorrow and we get a raging lake effect blizzard. But it won't.
publiusvarus wrote:
No it would force doctors to treat many more patients than they normally do. Do you have a job? What if one day the federal govn came to you and said they're going to double your workload? Do you suggest we just hire inferior personnel to deal with this massive influx?
Ummm. You are definitely the person who said it was asinine to try to guess at how their workload would change with this new policy.
Are you confused? I recommend smashing yourself over the head with a frying pan or something. Things may become more clear.
publiusvarus wrote:
I gurantee for every example you list I can show you how it's not comparable to what the Dems are proposing, or if it is, how it'll will end up hurting more people than it helps.
Sure you can, sparky.
publiusvarus wrote:
Let's compare malpratice premiums for doctors in the Belgium then compare them with doctors in the US and see what we come up with.
Oh let's! Go get some hard data.
Recent Visitors: 225
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (225)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We're not all idiots here
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC