Healthcare video

[Boarder]

Jng4TnKqy6A

[LilSooner]

Well that just made to much damn sense. You must be a WITCH!

WITCH! WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!

We will take none of your damn common sense on the South Oval. Move along hippy.

[Gresho Murford]

he forgot to put in there that we will be paying more so that "2-3%" instead of "8-10%" isn't a big deal.

And as for the efficiency of govt run things? haha. How efficient is the USPS doing?

[LilSooner]

Notice that is the one thing he did not mention when he was talking about things that were ran well. He mentioned police, fire department, water treatment facilities but no mention of the Post Office.

Dean's gonna be pissed!

[Gresho Murford]

Notice that is the one thing he did not mention when he was talking about things that were ran well. He mentioned police, fire department, water treatment facilities but no mention of the Post Office.

Dean's gonna be pissed!

umm yeah he did. At the start he mentioned it. Then later when talking about efficiency he said all those things I mentioned earlier

[LilSooner]

Go back and listen again he said that it was run by the government not that it was run well.

[My Opinion Matters]

This will lead to a lot of intelligent, impartial discussion.

[Gresho Murford]

Go back and listen again he said that it was run by the government not that it was run well.

nevermind...it obviously isn't getting through to you.

[Gresho Murford]

This will lead to a lot of intelligent, impartial discussion.

Your opinion doesn't matter:)

[My Opinion Matters]

Your opinion doesn't matter:)

Welcome aboard, noob! We all look forward to more examples of your cunning and incomparably original wit!

[KABOOKIE]

The government doesn't profit. They just take more.

[KABOOKIE]

Oh and at 0:48, I can't help but lol at the stickman graphic 2nd from the left. it looks like he is bustin a nut all over the place.

[JohnnyMack]

1. We live in a republic entrenched in capitalism. People are allowed to start up companies and <gasp!!!!> try and make money.

2. If Medicare is great and efficiently run why are more and more Dr's. refusing to accept Medicare patients?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

[Partial Qualifier]

So let's just wax idealistic about gubmint-run healthcare because it'll be just like firefighters and sanitation facilities?


Go tit.

[My Opinion Matters]

1. We live in a republic entrenched in capitalism. People are allowed to start up companies and <gasp!!!!> try and make money.

2. If Medicare is great and efficiently run why are more and more Dr's. refusing to accept Medicare patients?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html


Easy, Medicare reimburses at a lower rate than private insurance.

[JohnnyMack]

Easy, Medicare reimburses at a lower rate than private insurance.

So let's enslave the Dr.'s and force them to deal with it or leave the binness. Should see a nice increase in the amount of people enrolling in Med School if that happened.

[My Opinion Matters]

So let's enslave the Dr.'s and force them to deal with it or leave the binness. Should see a nice increase in the amount of people enrolling in Med School if that happened.

Agreed. Because it's the poor, destitute physicians that are tragically undercompensated and have their interests hronically under-represented under the current system. They're the real losers in all of this.

[JohnnyMack]

Agreed. Because it's the poor, destitute physicians that are tragically undercompensated and have their interests hronically under-represented under the current system. They're the real losers in all of this.

Some people work harder than others. Some people are smarter than others. Some people make more money than others. Some people are more talented than others.

What part of Capitalism don't you get?

[Pricetag]

Isn't part of capitalism also refusing to purchase something when you know you're being overcharged? That kinda depends upon being able to live without the product, though.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heres a reform we need but won't happen.

Howard Dead: "Did Not Want to Take on Trial Lawyers;" "That is the Plain and Simple Truth. That's the Truth."

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd8zprIrSU

Also interesting to see that the donks care about checking IDs to ask a question, but not to vote...

[My Opinion Matters]

Some people work harder than others. Some people are smarter than others. Some people make more money than others. Some people are more talented than others.

What part of Capitalism don't you get?

This is the best you can do? Reverting to elementary school smack about the nature of capitalism?Watching your descent into a Tuba-style poster (I really do love you, Tuba) has been equal parts horrifying and hilarious. It's obvious you're too hopelessly ignorant on this subject to be taken seriously.

[TopDawg]

Some people work harder than others. Some people are smarter than others. Some people make more money than others. Some people are more talented than others.

Yes. Exactly! These are the people who should get health care.







;)

[My Opinion Matters]

Isn't part of capitalism also refusing to purchase something when you know you're being overcharged? That kinda depends upon being able to live without the product, though.

Capitalism 101 teaches that a 5-minute CT scan uses $1400 in resources, therefore it costs the consumer $1500.

It's just simple, fair capitalism really.

[Harry Beanbag]

This is the best you can do? Reverting to elementary school smack about the nature of capitalism?Watching your descent into a Tuba-style poster (I really do love you, Tuba) has been equal parts horrifying and hilarious. It's obvious you're too hopelessly ignorant on this subject to be taken seriously.

I hope this is sarcasm. :confused:

[Harry Beanbag]

Capitalism 101 teaches that a 5-minute CT scan uses $1400 in resources, therefore it costs the consumer $1500.

It's just simple, fair capitalism really.

A jar of peanut butter costs about $1.00 to make, yet costs the consumer $3.00. What's your point?

[My Opinion Matters]

A jar of peanut butter costs about $1.00 to make, yet costs the consumer $3.00. What's your point?

Peanut butter and CT scans are the same.

[Harry Beanbag]

Peanut butter and CT scans are the same.

That's your point? Man, I'm even more confused than ever.

[Partial Qualifier]

Peanut butter and CT scans are the same.

Trash picker-uppers and the health care industry are the same.

[My Opinion Matters]

Staying on topic, why would anyone buy creamy when extra crunchy is readily available right next to it? I just don't get it, man.

[My Opinion Matters]

Trash picker-uppers and the health care industry are the same.

This thread is about peanut butter. Keep up.

[Partial Qualifier]

Skippy > Jif > Smuckers > Peter Pan ?

[soonerscuba]

Obama wants to make my peanut butter and muder kids with it?!?!? Oh noes.

[Harry Beanbag]

Staying on topic, why would anyone buy creamy when extra crunchy is readily available right next to it? I just don't get it, man.

I'm with you there. Personally, I think peanut butter manufacturers should make a larger profit when selling crunchy instead of creamy.

[Harry Beanbag]

Skippy > Jif > Smuckers > Peter Pan ?

Yeah, but who really needs competition and choices. We'd all be better off with a public option ran by the government with generic on the label.

[My Opinion Matters]

Anyone try this stuff?

http://i28.tinypic.com/ny7nte.jpg

Disgusting.

[Fraggle145]

Skippy > Jif > Smuckers > Peter Pan ?

The crunchy is the ****.

http://www.peanutbutter.com/images/natural_faq_products.jpg

[My Opinion Matters]

I still prefer the traditional peanut butter, that's made from artificial peanuts or whatevs.

[JohnnyMack]

This is the best you can do? Reverting to elementary school smack about the nature of capitalism?Watching your descent into a Tuba-style poster (I really do love you, Tuba) has been equal parts horrifying and hilarious. It's obvious you're too hopelessly ignorant on this subject to be taken seriously.

The road you were headed down ended in dictating how much doctors could earn. No? Sorry if I skipped ahead in your argument but while I don't share Tuba's maniacal teeth-gnashing belief that Obama will enslave us all, I don't think a Government run healthcare plan is a good idea. I don't think our federal government has any obligation to provide healthcare to its people, if you would like to offer up a rational argument as to why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

[Harry Beanbag]

The crunchy is the ****.

http://www.peanutbutter.com/images/natural_faq_products.jpg

Yes, this is very good.

[JohnnyMack]

**** Skippy peanut butter.

[SCOUT]

Capitalism 101 teaches that a 5-minute CT scan uses $1400 in resources, therefore it costs the consumer $1500.

It's just simple, fair capitalism really.

Go ahead and factor in the couple of million the machine actually cost to buy in that price.

[Harry Beanbag]

Go ahead and factor in the couple of million the machine actually cost to buy in that price.

Take that crap somewhere else mister, we're talking about fantasyland utopia stuff here, not reality. And peanut butter, don't forget the peanut butter.

[Partial Qualifier]

Yeah, but who really needs competition and choices. We'd all be better off with a public option ran by the government with generic on the label.

Gubmint peanut butter, tastes like cardboard, barely edible. Made of peanuts recycled from out-of-date PayDay bars. Must pay huge premium (or leave the country) for tasty peanut butter because all the nuts worth a damn left for greener pastures and therefore hate society.

[My Opinion Matters]

The road you were headed down ended in dictating how much doctors could earn. No? Sorry if I skipped ahead in your argument but while I don't share Tuba's maniacal teeth-gnashing belief that Obama will enslave us all, I don't think a Government run healthcare plan is a good idea. I don't think our federal government has any obligation to provide healthcare to its people, if you would like to offer up a rational argument as to why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

JM, I appreciate the pragmatic response. Sorry about the prickly response earlier, irratibility is one the cornerstones of my endearing internet persona.

I'll keep it as simple as concise as possible--healthcare needs an overhaul. I can't offer up copy-and-paste jobs, links to editorials with consenting or dissenting opinions, or the latest talking point from a like-minded partisan radio host. All I can offer is real and relevant real world perspective from someone who has been involved in the healthcare industry for nearly a decade. I have many friends and colleagues that are physicians. Any sort of reform in this industry will likely directly effect me more than it will most of you, and I am telling you, without hesitation that some sort of reform in this industry is absolutely essential to it's survival. Differing idealogies aside, from a business standpoint, the current model is unsustainable.

[Gresho Murford]

JM, I appreciate the pragmatic response. Sorry about the prickly response earlier, irratibility is one the cornerstones of my endearing internet persona.

I'll keep it as simple as concise as possible--healthcare needs an overhaul. I can't offer up copy-and-paste jobs, links to editorials with consenting or dissenting opinions, or the latest talking point from a like-minded partisan radio host. All I can offer is real and relevant real world perspective from someone who has been involved in the healthcare industry for nearly a decade. I have many friends and colleagues that are physicians. Any sort of reform in this industry will likely directly effect me more than it will most of you, and I am telling you, without hesitation that some sort of reform in this industry is absolutely essential to it's survival. Differing idealogies aside, from a business standpoint, the current model is unsustainable.

i don't think anybody is debating this...

[My Opinion Matters]

Go ahead and factor in the couple of million the machine actually cost to buy in that price.

These machines typically pay for themselves in a matter of months, but don't take my word for it. I've certainly never been involved on a personal level with the finances of a radiology department, but I read it somewhere on the internet or heard it on the radio or something.

[OklahomaTuba]

Differing idealogies aside, from a business standpoint, the current model is unsustainable.Ok, so what makes you think a Government run model is any more sustainable when social security, Medicare and Medicaid are near insolvency and we can't afford those programs to begin with???

[Fraggle145]

**** Skippy peanut butter.

**** off dip****!

[My Opinion Matters]

Ok, so what makes you think a Government run model is any more sustainable when social security, Medicare and Medicaid are near insolvency and we can't afford those programs to begin with???

Tuba, I can't tell you with any degree of certainty whether the proposed government plan will be any more efficient than what we currently have. No one can. I don't know if this is right plan or not. But I can tell you this administration is actually right about one thing, the time to act on this is now.

[Harry Beanbag]

Tuba, I can't tell you with any degree of certainty whether the proposed government plan will be any more efficient than what we currently have. No one can. I don't know if this is right plan or not. But I can tell you this administration is actually right about one thing, the time to act on this is now.

Of course if they're wrong then the country will bankrupt itself, but at least they did something, right? The thing with entitlement programs is they never go away.

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba, I can't tell you with any degree of certainty whether the proposed government plan will be any more efficient than what we currently have. No one can. I don't know if this is right plan or not. But I can tell you this administration is actually right about one thing, the time to act on this is now.

Ok, so given your logic that we don't know if the proposed reforms will actually improve anything or not (which we know it won't, given the other fine examples of government incompetence), we should just do it any way, and do it RIGHT NOW, just cause??

your realize how f'king stupid that sounds, right???

and we wonder why this issue is collapsing in the polls and taking Obama down with it.

[Fraggle145]

Of course if they're wrong then the country will bankrupt itself, but at least they did something, right? The thing with entitlement programs is they never go away.

Except Welfare...

[Fraggle145]

Ok, so given your logic that we don't know if the proposed reforms will actually improve anything or not, we should do it any way, just cause??

your realize how f'king stupid that sounds, right???

You realize how f'king stupid it sounds to sit around and not try to do something when you know something is broken doesnt it?

Where I come from we call it lazy.

[Howzit]

Of course if they're wrong then the country will bankrupt itself, but at least they did something, right? The thing with entitlement programs is they never go away.

Just hide and watch SS.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

[Harry Beanbag]

Except Welfare...

We got rid of Welfare?

[OklahomaTuba]

You realize how f'king stupid it sounds to sit around and not try to do something when you know something is broken doesnt it?

Depends on if the "fix" just makes the problem worse.

And given the success of bankrupting the country that the other "fixes" have had, this would make the problem MUCH worse.

[My Opinion Matters]

Ok, so given your logic that we don't know if the proposed reforms will actually improve anything or not (which we know it won't, given the other fine examples of government incompetence), we should just do it any way, and do it RIGHT NOW, just cause??

your realize how f'king stupid that sounds, right???

and we wonder why this issue is collapsing in the polls and taking Obama down with it.

Why do something about it now? Do you know what the word unsustainable means?

Also, what Fraggle said.

Also, because we'll potentially have another mortgage crisis-scale economic meltdown if we're not proactive about this issue.

Also, Reese's Crunchy Peanut Butter cups=Win.

[TopDawg]

I don't think our federal government has any obligation to provide healthcare to its people, if you would like to offer up a rational argument as to why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm just wondering if you have a set of rules that dictates for you what the federal government does and does not have an obligation to provide.

[Harry Beanbag]

There seems to be a huge disconnect between thinking the current healthcare system has flaws and needs to be addressed (which seems to be generally accepted by everyone) to creating another ginormous multi-trillion dollar government entitlement program.

[Harry Beanbag]

I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm just wondering if you have a set of rules that dictates for you what the federal government does and does not have an obligation to provide.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[KABOOKIE]

You realize how f'king stupid it sounds to sit around and not try to do something when you know something is broken doesnt it?

Where I come from we call it lazy.

Yep!

What do you call someone who tries to fix something but screws it up even worse?

Clumsy.

[Fraggle145]

We got rid of Welfare?

in 1996.

[OklahomaTuba]

Do you know what the word unsustainable means? Yes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the poster boys for it.

I'm guess you don't think bankrupting the country bad thing???

[OklahomaTuba]

in 1996.Not to mention that it helped lower the cost of the welfare entitlements and also help lower the poverty rate by getting people back to work. Best thing Clinton ever did IMO.

[KABOOKIE]

Best thing Clinton ever signed IMO.

Fixed.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Fixed.Yeah...can't give him ANY credit, can ya?

The Wingnut Union might take back your Tin Foil Hat.

[KABOOKIE]

Yeah...can't give him ANY credit, can ya?

The Wingnut Union might take back your Tin Foil Hat.

Well, it wasn't his doing. Now run offt and go poop somehwere else.

[TopDawg]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Well the question was for Johnny Mack, but I'll ask you the follow up.

Would you say, then, that the government is obligated to help form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

Is that the set of rules that dictates for you what the federal government does and does not have an obligation to provide?

[JohnnyMack]

There seems to be a huge disconnect between thinking the current healthcare system has flaws and needs to be addressed (which seems to be generally accepted by everyone) to creating another ginormous multi-trillion dollar government entitlement program.

This.

Why politicians don't move slower and more deliberately towards doing things like amending the constitution and not working so hard at spending money faster than it can be printed to try and fix problems is why we're ****ed. I would rather they operate at a level up here <waves hand over head> and spend less time meddling in expensive entitlement bull****.

I would like to have W and Obama sit at dinner with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and explain exactly what the hell it is they've been doing during the last 10 years.*

*Obama & W would do the explaining, Adams and Jefferson have been busy being dead. Just so we're clear.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I can't believe you guys think our government moves TOO FAST.

Lord Jesus...

[Harry Beanbag]

*Obama & W would do the explaining, Adams and Jefferson have been busy being dead. Just so we're clear.

Just as well that they're already dead, they would have had the big one during the explanation anyway.

[Harry Beanbag]

Well the question was for Johnny Mack, but I'll ask you the follow up.

Would you say, then, that the government is obligated to help form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

Is that the set of rules that dictates for you what the federal government does and does not have an obligation to provide?

No, that's the Preamble.

[TopDawg]

No, that's the Preamble.

OK, then what exactly are the rules? Let's say someone proposes an amendment to the constitution about something the federal government will do. What set of rules dictates for you whether or not the federal government has an obligation to provide the subject of the amendment?

[KABOOKIE]

I can't believe you guys think our government moves TOO FAST.

Lord Jesus...

Are you talking the national debt?

[JohnnyMack]

OK, then what exactly are the rules? Let's say someone proposes an amendment to the constitution about something the federal government will do. What set of rules dictates for you whether or not the federal government has an obligation to provide the subject of the amendment?

<raises hand> The people get to vote on whether or not its worthwhile?

[TopDawg]

<raises hand> The people get to vote on whether or not its worthwhile?

So what would be your own personal set of rules that would determine how you would vote? What criteria would you use to determine if it was something the government has an obligation to provide?

[LosAngelesSooner]

So the preamble doesn't count now.

Got it. :rolleyes:

[Harry Beanbag]

OK, then what exactly are the rules? Let's say someone proposes an amendment to the constitution about something the federal government will do. What set of rules dictates for you whether or not the federal government has an obligation to provide the subject of the amendment?


Article V - Amendment Note1 (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Article5) - Note2 (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html) - Note3 (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9Cl1) and fourth (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9Cl4) Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Harry Beanbag]

So the preamble doesn't count now.

Got it. :rolleyes:

The Preamble is an overall goal or statement of purpose. The actual "rules" as TopDawg is asking about are set forth below it.

[JohnnyMack]

So what would be your own personal set of rules that would determine how you would vote? What criteria would you use to determine if it was something the government has an obligation to provide?

Simple. If the tea leaves say yes, I'm a yes.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The Preamble is an overall goal or statement of purpose. The actual "rules" as TopDawg is asking about are set forth below it.Then shouldn't the RULES be designed to help us achieve our overall goal and stated purpose?

[TopDawg]

The Preamble is an overall goal or statement of purpose. The actual "rules" as TopDawg is asking about are set forth below it.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking for a civics lesson. I'm asking how you, personally, (or JohnnyMack, or anybody) would determine if some service was something that the government has an obligation to provide. Congress might pass the legislation, but you would still have a feeling one way or the other on whether or not it was something that the government has an obligation to provide. What are the rules that would determine that for you?

[Harry Beanbag]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking for a civics lesson. I'm asking how you, personally, (or JohnnyMack, or anybody) would determine if some service was something that the government has an obligation to provide. Congress might pass the legislation, but you would still have a feeling one way or the other on whether or not it was something that the government has an obligation to provide. What are the rules that would determine that for you?


How many times do I have to answer this? Personal feelings have nothing to do with it, nor should they.

[TopDawg]

OK, I think I see what you're saying. This is where it got confusing when you answered a question directed and JohnnyMack. He and I were operating with the understanding that the word "should" was understood (i.e. - whether or not the government should be obligated to provide a service) but you were not (i.e. - whether or not the government actually is obligated to provide a service). The question was meant to be philosophical, not legalistic, and I got sloppy with the language because I thought that was understood. My bad.

So, clearly if Congress votes yes on something (and it gets signed in and yada yada) then the government IS obligated to provide that service. But that's different than whether or not the government SHOULD be obligated to provide that service.

And that's what I'm asking. What set of criteria would you use to determine for yourself if it was something the government should be obligated to provide? If it was put up to a vote of the people to determine if the service in question was something that the government WOULD provide, how would you determine if it was something that the government SHOULD provide?

[Harry Beanbag]

OK, I think I see what you're saying. This is where it got confusing when you answered a question directed and JohnnyMack. He and I were operating with the understanding that the word "should" was understood (i.e. - whether or not the government should be obligated to provide a service) but you were not (i.e. - whether or not the government actually is obligated to provide a service). The question was meant to be philosophical, not legalistic, and I got sloppy with the language because I thought that was understood. My bad.

So, clearly if Congress votes yes on something (and it gets signed in and yada yada) then the government IS obligated to provide that service. But that's different than whether or not the government SHOULD be obligated to provide that service.

And that's what I'm asking. What set of criteria would you use to determine for yourself if it was something the government should be obligated to provide? If it was put up to a vote of the people to determine if the service in question was something that the government WOULD provide, how would you determine if it was something that the government SHOULD provide?

It's not going to be put up to a vote of the people, we have corrupt, agenda-driven, idiot representatives in Washington that do that for us.

Sorry if I was cockblocking between you and JM. :)

[1890MilesToNorman]

Propaganda cartoons to educate the dumbest of Americans. Hook, line and SINKER.

[GrapevineSooner]

And here's the other thing about the cartoon.

Police and Fire Departments are administered at the LOCAL level where there's more control and more say-so in how those departments are being run. That, in and of itself, makes any comparison between those two services to a FEDERAL healthcare program an apples to oranges comparison.

[JohnnyMack]

Sorry if I was cockblocking between you and JM. :)

Bitch.

[TopDawg]

It's not going to be put up to a vote of the people, we have corrupt, agenda-driven, idiot representatives in Washington that do that for us.

OK. Forget the hypothetical, then. What set of criteria would you use to determine for yourself if it was something the government should be obligated to provide?

JM's already responded. The tea leaves tell him. So when he said
I don't think our federal government has any obligation to provide healthcare to its people, if you would like to offer up a rational argument as to why I'm wrong, I'm all ears.

What he was saying, I suppose, is "The tea leaves tell me that our federal government does not have any obligation to provide healthcare to its people."

[Harry Beanbag]

OK. Forget the hypothetical, then. What set of criteria would you use to determine for yourself if it was something the government should be obligated to provide?

JM's already responded. The tea leaves tell him. So when he said

What he was saying, I suppose, is "The tea leaves tell me that our federal government does not have any obligation to provide healthcare to its people."

So tea leaves is an acceptable answer, but the Constitution isn't? :confused:

[Fraggle145]

And here's the other thing about the cartoon.

Police and Fire Departments are administered at the LOCAL level where there's more control and more say-so in how those departments are being run. That, in and of itself, makes any comparison between those two services to a FEDERAL healthcare program an apples to oranges comparison.

So then if we have universal healthcare, but make sure its offered at a lower level?

[Fraggle145]

So tea leaves is an acceptable answer, but the Constitution isn't? :confused:

NO.



;)

[JohnnyMack]

What he was saying, I suppose, is "The tea leaves tell me that our federal government does not have any obligation to provide healthcare to its people."

I think the Federal Government can establish and monitor the laws regarding how insurance companies should and should not operate. I think they should offer incentives in the form of tax deductions for people who buy their own insurance and should continue to allow companies who provide insurance to their employees to expense those costs. I think the Federal Government should establish a tax on foods that we know are harmful (like a Big Mac Tax) the same way cigarettes are taxed. I think the revenue from those taxes should be applied towards education programs that help people understand why they shouldn't eat that kind of crap in the first place. I think that the Federal Government should go after tort reform (clearly they're scared of the trial lawyers and all the money that gets rained down on them) and should also work at reworking how private insurance companies are allowed to treat pre-existing conditions.

What I don't think they should do is take tax money from the wealthy to pay for healthcare for people who don't have insurance for whatever reason. I don't think the Federal Government should administer an insurance company. I think it would stifle competition, increase paperwork, cost too much money and pretty much **** every last damn one of us off.

[49r]

Wow, is this thread ever full of hasty generalizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population. Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").

I've noticed lately this is a very common logical fallacy in use today on the South Oval, possibly even replacing the Red Herring and Straw Man in popularity. Damn, I wish people were smarter so we wouldn't have to wade through page after page of this **** when debating a topic. I mean, if we can't have a separate Politics forum or move these pissing matches to Smack Central, then at least we could TRY to have more intelligent debates can't we?

Here's a handy reference to common logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) and what they mean. You can refer to this when deciding why the person you are arguing with is an idiot.

I don't know, maybe I'm putting too much faith in you guys...(and I mean guys, so far all the ladies here have remained cool-headed and civil - the ones that are left here that is)

[OklahomaTuba]

So when the donks promise that the "ChappaquiddiCare" bill won't give coverage to illegal aliens, and it ends up doing so, what kind of logical fallacy would that be???


Obamacare won't cover illegal immigrants? Yes it will, says Congressional Research Service

Among the many claims being made durng the August recess by Democrats from President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, to the lowliest back-bencher is that Obamacare absolutely, positively, cannot possibly ever in a million, zillion years provide coverage to illegal immigrants.
Just this past weekend during his regular Saturday address - devoted to addressing what he called "false claims about reform" - Obama said he wants "an honest debate" on health care reform, "not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions."
In what he called the "first myth" being spread by critics of his proposal for a government-run health care system, Obama said they are wrong in claiming illegal immigrants will be covered: "That is not true. Illegal immigrants would not be covered. That idea has not even been on the table." Obama said.
Well, Mr. President, that idea must have been tucked under a stack of background briefing papers over there in the corner of the table because the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says this about H.R. 3200, the Obamacare bill approved just before the recess by the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA:
"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

[OULenexaman]

MY NEW TRUCK



I bought a new Chevy Silverado and returned to the dealer yesterday because I couldn't get the radio to work. The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated.

'Nelson,' the salesman said to the radio. The radio replied, 'Ricky or Willie?' 'Willie!' he continued, and 'On The Road Again' came from the speakers.

Then he said, 'Ray Charles!', and in an instant 'Georgia On My Mind' replaced Willie Nelson.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say,
'Beethoven,' I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said,
'Beatles,' I'd get one of their awesome songs.

Yesterday, some guy ran a red light and nearly creamed my new
truck, but I swerved in time to avoid him. I yelled, '*** Hole!'

Immediately the radio responded with, "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States ."

Damn I love my Chevy truck......

[GrapevineSooner]

So then if we have universal healthcare, but make sure its offered at a lower level?

The State's Rights guy in me wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that if the only other option was a government run healthcare plan.

Johnny hit on this earlier in the thread. For me, it basically comes down to my lack of faith in our federal government to be able to administer a health plan on a scale that no other government program has been administered before without f***ing it up.

Just look at Amtrak, the Post Office, and the infamous Cash for Clunkers programs as examples for my lack of faith.

[Fraggle145]

MY NEW TRUCK



I bought a new Chevy Silverado and returned to the dealer yesterday because I couldn't get the radio to work. The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated.

'Nelson,' the salesman said to the radio. The radio replied, 'Ricky or Willie?' 'Willie!' he continued, and 'On The Road Again' came from the speakers.

Then he said, 'Ray Charles!', and in an instant 'Georgia On My Mind' replaced Willie Nelson.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say,
'Beethoven,' I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said,
'Beatles,' I'd get one of their awesome songs.

Yesterday, some guy ran a red light and nearly creamed my new
truck, but I swerved in time to avoid him. I yelled, '*** Hole!'

Immediately the radio responded with, "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States ."

Damn I love my Chevy truck......

When I get in my friends truck and say *******, it isnt as picky... it tends to hit any politician!

[OU Adonis]

Why does everyone think its a Right to have government provide health care?

I would think providing food and housing would be more of a Right than nationalized health care. And before people metion section 8 or foodstamps, that doesn't cover everyone.

[Gresho Murford]

just checkng out my reputation thing. And to LASooner...is the usps in the red?

[StoopTroup]

lol

[Boarder]

This thread's no tramp stamp.