Longest rant competition: sgreger1 vs. snuppy. Do not enter

[wa3zrm]

[LaZeR]

Yes! :cry: :cry: :cry:

[blotgode]

[snupy]

But VB, it was the government that regulated the loan companies to make them give homes to people who could not afford them that caused the recession.

Proof? BB&T needs no bailouts, but BB&T didn't mess with sub-prime in the bubble. In what way did the government force BB&T to give mortgages to people who could not afford them? If the government forced it, how is it BB&T never messed around in the sub-prime market?

[snupy]

A person paying a dr for services IS capitalism. A company comes in and realizes dr's are charging to much, so gets lots of people needing care and negotiates lower rates with the Dr in return for more business, ie an HMO. that is capitalism, everyone has mutually benefitted from it, either monitarily or by having affordable health care.

1. You might want to look up the history of HMOs before you run around and claim 'everyone mutually benefitted.'

2. In a capitalist system, the duty on the company is to return the greatest profit to the shareholders. For a health insurance company, this means the more claims DENIED, the greater the PROFIT. Am I the only one who sees a conflict of interest here?

Let me guess, YOU haven't been denied care by your insurance company. What about Nataline Sarkisyan & Nick Colombo? Both are dead at 17 years of age, because the insurance companies did not want to pay for either a liver transplant or bone cancer treatment. Here's a recent court case where an insurance company REVOKED the policy of a 17 year old, once he tested positive for HIV. That kid won a 10 million dollar judgement in a court room in South Carolina, which is one of the most conservative states in the country. Don't you think it behooves conservatives to make damn sure the insurance companies do their jobs, so the taxpayer's aren't left footing the bill in these cases?

People like you just crack me up. You sit around and whine and moan about how the government wants to take over everything, as if it is for no reason at all. People like you always fail to mention the REASONS behind issues such as healthcare reform. My sister had a hysterectomy some years back and was thrown out of the hospital within 24 hours of the operation. Since then, the EVIL GOVERNMENT THAT WON'T STOP INTERFERING IN OUR LIVES, have a new law which states women can not be kicked out of a hospital until three days AFTER a hysterectomy. How utterly rude of our goverment to write laws that actually address issues wherein business is simply out to screw the public (with possible costs on their lives) all in the name of greater profit.

The same is true of health care reform. It SHOULD be illegal for a health insurance company to revoke a policy simply because one turns up HIV positive, get bone cancer, or needs a liver transplant. Why should the taxpayers end up having to pay for these treatments simply because a business decides it doesn't want to? Are you, as a taxpayer, ok with footing the bill for these treatments because a health insurance company decides it doesn't want to pay for them?

[snupy]

This is exactly what republicans are saying. No such thing as too big to fail, if you suck, than you deserve to die. Democrats are the ones who want to prop up these companies and bail them out.

You're right. It would have been so much better to respond as we did in 29 and have a several years long depression.

[snupy]

The point is that we cannot give everyone a free ride and not expect it to cost us a bundle.

But we have been doing this with health care of years. Without action, healthcare will bankrupt the government in a few years. Social Security takes the largest chunk of tax dollars. Medicare is second. We either fix it or healthcare bankrupts the nation, thus the healthcare reform. Don't you think it is fiscally conservative to address Medicare and healthcare costs BEFORE they bankrupt the budget?

The proposed system is that government provides them with health care and other will pay for it, that is socialism.

Oh the horrors of socialism! Do you complain about our socialized police force? Do you complain about our socialized fire departments? Do you complain about our socialized libraries? Do you complain about our socialized roads and highways? Please explain how socialized police, fire, roads and libraries are bringing our country to it's knees due to the BOO! SCARY! nature of socialized services.

(HINT: Stop getting your politics from RADIO ENTERTAINERS.)

[snupy]

As I was reading through it, I kept thinking to myself, this is what we have now. Bush Part 2, the Tan Edition.

Hmmm. The media played Obama up, while playing McCain down (although his pick of Palin made it even easier, as it if too, were part of some plan.) It is almost as if the powers that be WANTED Obama to win.

Hmmmm. Let's see. Obama is a great orator. He can sell many on anything with a good speech. Who better to sell Bush policy to the public? Bush's biggest failure was he didn't sell the policies of the aristocrats to the public, thus, Obama.

Until the public realizes both the Republicans and Democrats represent the very uppercrust of the wealthy and not us, we will forever be bickering over the better of the two false choices of Republican or Democrat.

Seriously, both are liars.

[tom502]

I would support socialized medicine, if that's what it was, and was run right. But what they have done, and what's been done, is insurance company empowerment. The problems are not health care, they are insurance. Ditch insurance, is a usery scam. Instead of paying the mobsters, pay into health care taxes, and the drs and hospitals get a government check, and all citizens get "free" health care, and there is no insurance scammers. The problems though we will face in America, and why we can't compare this with more socially developed nations in Europe like Denmark, is in the USA we have maybe millions homless people sleeping under bridges, in shelters, in shacks, mass unemployment, illegals, etc. Health Care Insurance Reform in the USA is just more liberal left welfare state, to where the many who do not contribute get free treatment from the toil of those who do contribute. So, while this will just bury us more into debt, and fail us as a nation and a people, the main problem here, is people are becoming more dependendent on national hand outs. We need job reform, a severe cutting and restricting of jobs from going overseas. Socialism would work well, if everyone contributes.

[snupy]

I would support socialized medicine, if that's what it was, and was run right. But what they have done, and what's been done, is insurance company empowerment.

Are you saying they sold us out to the aristocrats AGAIN?

The problems are not health care, they are insurance.

Honestly, I would much rather see 676 than 3200. Now THAT'S socialized medicine, but the cost savings would be HUGE and the insurance companies would be gone as useless middlemen.

[sgreger1]

The point is that we cannot give everyone a free ride and not expect it to cost us a bundle.

But we have been doing this with health care of years. Without action, healthcare will bankrupt the government in a few years. Social Security takes the largest chunk of tax dollars. Medicare is second. We either fix it or healthcare bankrupts the nation, thus the healthcare reform. Don't you think it is fiscally conservative to address Medicare and healthcare costs BEFORE they bankrupt the budget?

The proposed system is that government provides them with health care and other will pay for it, that is socialism.

Oh the horrors of socialism! Do you complain about our socialized police force? Do you complain about our socialized fire departments? Do you complain about our socialized libraries? Do you complain about our socialized roads and highways? Please explain how socialized police, fire, roads and libraries are bringing our country to it's knees due to the BOO! SCARY! nature of socialized services.

(HINT: Stop getting your politics from RADIO ENTERTAINERS.)

People like you always amaze me. Using the same failed arguments over and over.

Yes I like the police, roads, fire dept etc. These are all infrastructure and not social programs like welfare. I have no problem with government running infrastructure since that is what they were created to do.
This does not mean that you can use that excuse to say everything we do should be socialist now. By your standard, every country has a military so is every country socialist?

No.

In america we have a balance between socialism and capitalism. I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed, but the plan that is on the table is something even GW could not have ****ed up so badly.

All it is is another way to mandate taxes and exercise more power. If you think the gov will not be rationing/denying treatment and that they will be more ethical than the insurance companies, you must have never gone out into the real world.


I cannot wait for all of you liberals to see that this plan that is being proposed (house bill that just passed) is not going to be the savior you have been looking for. Instead of private companies rationing coverage it will just be the gov now, and they are much beter at rationing because they have politicians in charge who are always claiming how they are going to "cut cost" etc to look good politically.




EDIT: I am not an anarchist and believe government was created to serve a vital role so the rest of us can go on with our lives and not worry about upkeeping the roads, having a standing army etc. This does not mean gov should be involved in (or a major shareholder of) regular businesses that affect us on a daily basis i.e. car companies, banks, hospitals etc.
The private sector can handle it. If you think that the gov will somehow deny coverage any less you are wrong. Look at other countries with socialized medicine... they routinely deny new top of the line treatments because they are too expensive, whereas americans have the ability to pay for it if they want.


Frankly, as long as they dont touch my current health insurance, I don't care anymore what they do. But if it affects my good insurance plan I have now, I will be pissed.

[snupy]

Yes I like the police, roads, fire dept etc. These are all infrastructure and not social programs like welfare.

We do not HAVE to have welfare. See Marie Antoinette for what happens in that case.

This does not mean that you can use that excuse to say everything we do should be socialist now.

Outside of you, in the above quote, who has ever made such a claim?

By your standard, every country has a military so is every country socialist?

How cute you are when you attempt to place your own words into my mouth. Strawman much?

In america we have a balance between socialism and capitalism.

HUH? Care to elaborate?

I agree that healthcare needs to be reformed, but the plan that is on the table is something even GW could not have ****ed up so badly.

Agreed. 676 would be so much better and save far more money.

All it is is another way to mandate taxes and exercise more power.

It's a gift to the insurance industry. Nothing more and nothing less.

If you think the gov will not be rationing/denying treatment and that they will be more ethical than the insurance companies, you must have never gone out into the real world.

Why not discuss the rationing of healthcare under our PRESENT capitalist health insurance system? Do you care to address the deaths of Natalie and Nick? Or do the deaths of 17 year old Americans at the hands of capitalist health insurance companies, not fall into your definition of 'rationing,' all because an insurance company decides it doesn't want to pay for treatments?

I cannot wait for all of you liberals to see that this plan that is being proposed (house bill that just passed) is not going to be the savior you have been looking for.

You've not a clue of what you are talking about. I don't support 3200. I support 676, even if I do understand the need for health care reform.

Instead of private companies rationing coverage it will just be the gov now,

Then it should be trivial for you to provide examples of the government rationing healthcare under Medicare. So where are these examples?

and they are much beter at rationing because they have politicians in charge who are always claiming how they are going to "cut cost" etc to look good politically.

You are very good at spreading FUD. Pity you've not a shred of evidence to back it up.

The private sector can handle it.

Oh yeah! The private sector most certainly handled the housing bubble so very well, didn't they?

If you think that the gov will somehow deny coverage any less you are wrong.

Then prove me wrong! Where are your examples which demonstrate the government rations health care in Medicare?

Look at other countries with socialized medicine... they routinely deny new top of the line treatments because they are too expensive, whereas americans have the ability to pay for it if they want.

Proof?

[VBSnus]

I'm in a hotel on travel right now and want nothing more than to go to bed. But I can't wait to get in on this.

[sgreger1]

Snupy, like vb I just want to goto bed. My message here has always been one of both parties are all the same and must be stopped. Although I feel that the democrats in particular are accelerating this take over operation, and just building on what Bush has laid the path for.

Even as a right of center individual, I would prefer a truly nationalized socialist healthcare to what they have proposed. Our system is broken, this is true. if the dems are going to bring in big government, they cant be in the middle. It's either socialized healthcare all the way or just more of the same, rebranded under a new name. The plan the house just voted on is more of the same.

Given that, I am going to bed. But in the morning I will respond to your last message and litterally obliterate you
With examples and proof of course. But I am frankly too drunk to be posting right now.

Most people on this forum are pretty liberal, so your going to get a lot of support. Im sure VB is going to back you up, and Sage as well. But I will make my argument against the current proposed bill tomorrow, and rebuttal your... well whatever the **** that was. It is going to be biblical.


Cheers my friend.

[CM]

Yeah, politics...

More and more shit is getting found here at finland what the ministers are doing. =F