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

[VBSnus]

Time for a good old VBSnus short post.

1. This is an assumption: 3200 is a bulky bill which lays the framework for government involvement in healthcare. Within the next couple decades it will likely turn into the basis for universal healthcare, using the foundations of this bill and whatever new government organizations come into being to support it.

2. Medical care should rightly fall outside of capitalism. Demand is endless because we're talking about accident, life, and death. Providing health care to the nation is a worthy goal of any government.

3. Insurance companies exist to: a) artificially inflate the cost of healthcare, and b) profit off of denial of care. This is a business model that, ethical and moral points aside, is not sustainable and will have to end eventually.

4. I've come to the conclusion that the most important government regulations should be ingestibles. Things you eat, breathe, smoke, put in your upper or lower lip, drink. Drugs, things that soak into your skin. Those are of the first importance. Human rights policy next, fiscal policy next. Health and well being comes from or goes away due to the things you put in your body.

5. The 'government forced banks to do bad stuff' thing has been debunked. As snupy mentioned, BB&T is a prime example. My mom is a VP for BB&T and recently helped oversee the purchase of Colonial. They stayed afloat and do well by not promoting shady or risky lending, not lending to anyone who wants it but balancing their portfolio, etc. They follow smart business practices and do well. Any other bank could have done this, but they were driven by greed.

6. If the Republican party wants to be strong again, they need to embrace a more libertarian view. Dump the Christian right, the moral stuff, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Muslim views and concentrate on fiscal conservativism and true absence of government. You can't call government health insurance intrusive while telling people who they can't marry or whether or not they can be taken off life support. Stay out of my wallet, my religion, my bedroom, everything.

7. If the Democrat party wants to remain in power, grow a backbone. I'm not saying they should have rammed healthcare in, but they should fight more conclusively for it. Instead of hemming and hawing, get the message straight and deliver it like a freaking bullet to the head. Get on the same page.

8. If the Libertarian party wants to get strong, they must disassociate themselves from the Republican party in a mean way. The Tea Parties have been hijacked by Republican shills and the message is garbled. Most people I know consider Libertarians to be Republicans who don't want to call themselves Republicans, and associate them with the blathering and sometimes racist spectacles they see on TV.

9. I'm starting to think of politics as professional wrestling. People come out, yell at each other, chokeslam the boss, two commentators yell about it, everyone acts like it's real but we all know it's not. In the end it's all Vince McMahon running the show and raking in the dough.

[snupy]

No, I maintain that you implied it,

Stating FACTS implies nothing, It Is FACT our roads, police, fire dept, libraries, etc are socialized services.

and continue to imply more socialization in this response as well.

Even AFTER I have clearly stated socialized services can save costs in certain instances, you STILL ASSUME something completely different.

SOME things may benefit from socialization, basic infrastructure items. I do not consider health insurance to be part of infrastructure, so we will have to agree to disagree.

ASSUMING what you do not know has nothing AT ALL to do with 'agreeing to disagree.'

That would hold clout if you had just provided a list of socialized services. You instead went on a rant about how you shouldnt be scared of socialism and look at all the good socialist things we have now, why are you soafraid??" etc.

It's not a rant to cite the list of socialized services we presently have. What you ASSUMED I meant by providing that list, has NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I actually meant to demonstrate by offering the list.
What part of the following sentence do you not understand?

"Socialized services can save COSTS, which, from what I understand, fiscal conservatives might find attractive."

So what are you arguing about.

Your foolish assumption that 'everything should be socialized now,' simply because one provides a list of present socialized services. One does not imply the other, so why ASSUME it does?

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Where in that definition does it mention 'tax and spend.' as defining socialism?

This is the whole premise, to "share the wealth" and welath redistribution.

What does that have to do with 'tax and spend' as a definition of 'socialism' as you claimed? If we pay tax to the county for services and part of those taxes fund the court systems, does that make us socialist, simply because were were taxed and it was spent on the courts?

What I am refering to is socialism light, or even better:

Except your 'tax and spend' definition of socialism does not appear in the dictionary, not even in the definition you yourself cited here.

utopian socialism 
–noun (sometimes initial capital letter) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.

This is more like it. If we give it up and let the state handle it, they will better know how to distribute us to stop poverty, bad healthy, and make sure every one gets their daily ration of flowers.

Where is that happening in our society? Oh, that's right, two industries and not every player in those two industries are effected and the REASONS for state intervention in those two industries have nothing AT ALL to do with abolition of unemployment or poverty, which means, what you have defined as 'socialism' isn't really socialism according to the definition you yourself supplied here. IE, you've not a clue what you are talking about.

Where in the above quote do I advocate that our entire system should be based on socialism?

You are arguing against a point that no one here brought up but you. None here have argued our entire system should be socialist, although you did pose the strawman argument earlier that by providing a list of socialized services must somehow imply one wishes for everything to be socialized. Why keep bringing it up to argue against it, when none here have ever offered the point to begin with?

I was making a comment base don my opinion

Yet your opinion is based on socialism being defined as 'tax and spend' which the definition you yourself provided does not support. Therefore, your opinion is incorrect, because the very foundation of it is incorrect.

No where in the above quote did I say that you thought we should make it a completely socialized system.

That happened much, much earlier in this discussion.

If i'm a 5 year old, than you are thick as a ****ing rock.

The definition you yourself provided does not mention either of taxing or spending as defining socialism. Who does that leave here as being 'dumb?'

It is the first step,

Oh I get it. There will be rationing under health care, but you can't prove it outside of the Psychic Friends Network, just as having private companies selling insurance will inevitably lead to either a socialist or communist US, which you also can't prove outside of the Psychic Friends Network. I get it.

You are thinking too small and do not see the long term big picture here of where concepts like this will lead us.

You are making wild claims, which appear very much to be based in your own paranoia, for which you have no reason nor evidence to believe. I could do the same. Once 3200 is enacted, monkeys will sure fly out of the behinds of every citizen promptly at 9:24 AM PST every Saturday morning. I can't prove it for a health care system that hasn't been enacted yet, however, so you just have to believe me.

Like I said, it never happens overnight, it is done in steps.

More paranoia with no proof whatsoever to back it up.

Communism is where the state runs your shit,

In two industries, with not even every player in those two industries involved?

It's kind of commie. Socialism is the step right before communism, but they have a lot of the same founding principles.

Based on wild paranoid fantasies and a definition of socialism that no dictionary supports.

This is how it starts, the gov starts regulating ina way to where they have more and then complete control of certain industires, creating the illusion that these industries are still operating in the private sector. Then when the regulations choke it out, the feds bail them out and say "we are paying for this now so we get to make the rules".

BOO SCARY GOVERNMENT!

Of course it does, did I ever say they played no part?

It's the second time you attempt to blame a very complex situation on only one factor, as if complex situations are ever due to single factors.

What works in Sweden, canada etc, may not work here.

Except for British health care, which is an EXACT representation of how 3200 will be in the US, right?

Yes my friend, growing the size of government historically has led to more power for the people... It's like you just don't get it.

You've not a shred of proof 3200 is growing the government. Ptrivate insueres will be selling insurance under 3200. All you have are paranoid fantasies about what may happen in the future, when you've no reason whatsoever to believe the paranoia.

Everything I have said has been my opinion on the end result of all this. You can't prove anything either, as it is in the future and has not happened.

If I can't prove government intervention into two industries will lead to a 100% socialized US, what reason would I possibly have to ASSUME it? I am not trying to prove ANYTHING. All I am saying is without EVIDENCE to back up your paranoid fears, I have no reason to take your paranoid fears seriously.

You can only make an educated guess. You and me are doing the same thing.

No we are not. We learned from the Swedish banking crisis of the 90s, as well as the crash of 29, that in situations such as this, we must expand the money supply and ease the credit squeeze to avoid depression. We did. It worked. You can claim it is due to some secret government conspiracy all you wish. It doesn't make it true, particularly given your lack of evidence.

How do you suppose we pay for all of the immense amount of technology, administration, dr's, nurses, medical staff, drugs, research and developement etc that is part of the healthcare industry? If you think we can have the level of care we have but with it being cheap, I would submit that you are wrong. Cheaper, perhaps, but it is still going to be expensive to pay all these professionals to give us treatment.

1. People have to do their own cost controls, just as you do with any other purchase. The time to find out a prescription costs $300 is not when you pick it up at the pharmacy, but when the doctor hands it to you in his office. You ask how much it costs. The doctor won't know, so have a nurse call the pharmacy to find out. If it is $300, you tell the doctor you need a generic for two reasons; 1. the cost is too high 2. under patent medications have been on the market for too short of a time period to know the full side effects. Tell them you want a generic which has been on the market for 40-50 years such that all risks are known. (Not that I know this from personal experience - HA!)

2. Do not take a doctor's word simply because they say it. If a doctor tells you you need surgery, ask how much it costs. If you can not afford it, tell the doctor you need some other method other than surgery. If a dentist tells you you need four crowns and you have six cavities, and you know that dentist is moving his office into a very expensive high rise, get a second opinion. You might find out you only have two tiny cavities that are so small novocaine won't even be necessary. (Not that I know this from personal experience - HA!)

3. Some companies offer health accounts for employees. At the beginning of the year, each employee is given $1500 in a health savings account. At the end of the year, whatever money has not been spent on health care, the employee gets to keep. What does this do? It makes employees become cost conscious in making health care services, just as they are in every other purchase in life. See #1 & 2 above.

4. 676 - There are ways to standardize treatments at lower costs. If we can treat condition A with either of drug B or C and drug B costs less, then we mandate that as a first option, in the 80-90% of the cases where it's applicable (and barring that drug from those allergic to it. etc.)

no one is going to get a PHD to get a job that makes 40k a year.

And I won't use a doctor whose in it strictly for the money. See #2 above.

Do I really need to research google for you to prove that insurance companies ration care?

I have already cited three cases that prove that is the case, but that is not the issue. The issue is the wild and paranoid claims you make about the future, when you freely admit you've no evidence whatsoever to back up what you say.

You want better care and cover everyone without it costing us anything.

Provide a post and direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the above claim withdrawn due to falsehood.

I ASSUME... that we have a deal :wink:

See above. You apparently can't control yourself.

No, the whole point is that I was saying that in my opinion, this will occur.

Then why didn't you say so to begin with, instead of pretending that England's single payer system would have any similarity AT ALL to how 3200 plays out in the US?

That is what i said from the beginning.

No it's not and any who read here can verify it. See above and refer to what you said earlier in this discussion.

You cant say it won't happen either,

I refuse to believe your vast government conspiracy theory solely due to the lack of evidence that you freely admit.

Have you been living under a freaking rock? Obama has made it the state of his message that he will not sign any HC reform bill that adds even 1$ to the deficit. How can you be unaware of this?

It's suspiciously similar to the ASSERTION previously addressed wherein you claimed I believe all could have health care at no cost. I never said any such thing. It's simply another one of your assumptions.

When did I say I get my advice from the radio? Let me guess, you ASSUME (I thought you hated people who assume?) that I am a Rush limbaugh fan or something huh?

You argue the same nonsensical positions that the radio entertainers do. It's a reasonable assumption to make. You even use the same definitions of 'socialism' that they do, which can not be found in any dictionary.

Let look at some other companies other than Countrywide. How about Fannie and Freddy?

Who ever claimed Fannie and Freddy avoided getting caught up in the same asset bubble as so many private companies did? They are no different than Wachovia, WaMu and numerous other private companies that got caught up in the bubble.

Dems are the ones who wouldn't allow the gov to crackdown on these bad lending policies

You have to take that up with the FDIC Chairman. I believe her over you. And she is a Republican AND a Bush appointee at that.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...umnist_hassett

How cute! An economist for both Bush and McCain is blaming the housing bubble on the Democrats! Who knew?

Never said these companies are not at fault. Gov's job is to reign them in, dems stopped that from happening. (See above) Therefore, gov, as well as the lenders, and people who took the loans are all at fault to some extent.

All because a Republican economist blames the entire situation on the Democrats? Let me ask you a question. Do you know what an 'unbiased source' is?

[sgreger1]

Time for a good old VBSnus short post.

Oxymoron much? lol

2. Medical care should rightly fall outside of capitalism. Demand is endless because we're talking about accident, life, and death. Providing health care to the nation is a worthy goal of any government.

Like I said, I would prefer a full on socialized canadian style system if we have to change it than I would the current proposal in 3200. You are absolutely correct that in the greatest nation on earth, we should not have to worry about if we are going to go bankrupt if we get the sniffles. With 350 million people in the country, and as population continues to raise, there will be more and more diseases that have hosts to take down. This is natures way of trimming things down to sustainable levels, but I aint no green enviro-freak so I say **** mother nature, lets prove her wrong

3. Insurance companies exist to: a) artificially inflate the cost of healthcare, and b) profit off of denial of care. This is a business model that, ethical and moral points aside, is not sustainable and will have to end eventually.

Agreed.

4. I've come to the conclusion that the most important government regulations should be ingestibles. Things you eat, breathe, smoke, put in your upper or lower lip, drink. Drugs, things that soak into your skin. Those are of the first importance. Human rights policy next, fiscal policy next. Health and well being comes from or goes away due to the things you put in your body.

Let me make sure I read that right. You are on of those people that thinks we should ban trans fat, and allow the government to have the power to decide what is good for us and what is not? Cummon, what about choice? What if I want to eat a steak or snus a little? Smoke a cigarette? Put extra butter on my toast?

Very unamerican.

5. The 'government forced banks to do bad stuff' thing has been debunked. As snupy mentioned, BB&T is a prime example. My mom is a VP for BB&T and recently helped oversee the purchase of Colonial. They stayed afloat and do well by not promoting shady or risky lending, not lending to anyone who wants it but balancing their portfolio, etc. They follow smart business practices and do well. Any other bank could have done this, but they were driven by greed.

While yes they are driven by greed. They basicly were saying that the gov has our backs and if we run this scheme untill it blows we will get biled out anyways so **** it. On this one we will have to agree to disagree.

6. If the Republican party wants to be strong again, they need to embrace a more libertarian view. Dump the Christian right, the moral stuff, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Muslim views and concentrate on fiscal conservativism and true absence of government. You can't call government health insurance intrusive while telling people who they can't marry or whether or not they can be taken off life support. Stay out of my wallet, my religion, my bedroom, everything.

The republicans will never be strong again. And conservatism stands for all those things you listed, so to act like something else would just make them sell-outs. If that is what they believe than let a new party come in, like the libertarians who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

I agree that we should not make it federal policy that churches have to marry gay's. but for a different reason. I think that the gov should have no say in it, other than goign to court and getting the paperwork for domestic aprtner etc, it is not their call. Marriage is a religious seremony where you promise your faith to god, and that means that gov should have no say in it. If a church wants to marry gays, or if the pope says thats cool now, than let it be done. Allowing the gov to force religions who do not believe in it to condone marriages violates seperation of church and state. If your religion says no gay marriage, than that is not the religion for gays. We cna't let gov dictate policy of religion, it is against what we stand for as a country.

7. If the Democrat party wants to remain in power, grow a backbone. I'm not saying they should have rammed healthcare in, but they should fight more conclusively for it. Instead of hemming and hawing, get the message straight and deliver it like a freaking bullet to the head. Get on the same page.

Agreed. The fact that the house bill passed by a slim margin shows that not everyone was behind this, and that they are not all working together. I think that if they wanted universal healthcare or whatever they wanted, they should have accomplished it when they still had a lot of political capitol, because the honest answer is that if you let it be debated long enough and don't make a decision, you look weak. And now look what happened... 3200.

8. If the Libertarian party wants to get strong, they must disassociate themselves from the Republican party in a mean way. The Tea Parties have been hijacked by Republican shills and the message is garbled. Most people I know consider Libertarians to be Republicans who don't want to call themselves Republicans, and associate them with the blathering and sometimes racist spectacles they see on TV.

Yes, the tea parties were by all means hijacked by the republicans, and that is what has caused them to be seen in sucha negative light. Something that was a grass roots effort to protest big government turned intoa pet project for Fox news.

9. I'm starting to think of politics as professional wrestling. People come out, yell at each other, chokeslam the boss, two commentators yell about it, everyone acts like it's real but we all know it's not. In the end it's all Vince McMahon running the show and raking in the dough.

Best analogy i've heard yet.

[sgreger1]

Stating FACTS implies nothing, It Is FACT our roads, police, fire dept, libraries, etc are socialized services.

Thats all i was saying guy, that you were saying how lots of our things were socialized already so who should we be afraid of socialism. I said I agre they are socialised but that doens't translate into don't be afraid of socialized everything. Why are we going back and forth on this, we both agree.

SOME things may benefit from socialization, basic infrastructure items. I do not consider health insurance to be part of infrastructure, so we will have to agree to disagree.

ASSUMING what you do not know has nothing AT ALL to do with 'agreeing to disagree.'

How am I assuming anything? I am saying that some things are more cost saving if done in a socialzied manner, but that doens't mean everything should be socialized. Are you proving my point by saying that the rest of stuff should be socialized, or do you share my belief that only some things should be? We are going in circles here.

What part of the following sentence do you not understand?

"Socialized services can save COSTS, which, from what I understand, fiscal conservatives might find attractive."

Yes, I get it, and you are right, fiscal conservatives like to save money. That is why we have no problems with social programs that save money. But that doens't mean that socializing everything would mean more cost savings. There are some thigns in which it is not cheaper to do it ona socialized basis, like public schools, we waste billions and have sub par schools. You are the one looking at it in black and white. Well the roads work, so why not socialize everything? It doens't work like that.

So what are you arguing about.

Your foolish assumption that 'everything should be socialized now,' simply because one provides a list of present socialized services. One does not imply the other, so why ASSUME it does?

Dude, make your point clear and quit tlaing circles. We agree some social services are needed. I ask well than are you implying that everything should be socialized? you respond that socialization can save money. So how does that not imply that you are promoting further socialization? I don't get where you are coming from here, you just add the word "ASSUME" to every sentence.

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Where in that definition does it mention 'tax and spend.' as defining socialism?

Take from one to give to another. Like taxing and spending. Taking from those who have and giving it to the have nots.

This is the whole premise, to "share the wealth" and welath redistribution.

What does that have to do with 'tax and spend' as a definition of 'socialism' as you claimed? If we pay tax to the county for services and part of those taxes fund the court systems, does that make us socialist, simply because were were taxed and it was spent on the courts?

No, but it is a socialst way of doing things, and theres nothing wrong with that. i dont mind ppaying taxes so that courts stay open. But what I am hearing is that youa re advocating we take it further and expand what programs I am willing to subsidize with my tax dollars.

What I am refering to is socialism light, or even better:

Except your 'tax and spend' definition of socialism does not appear in the dictionary, not even in the definition you yourself cited here.

You are too inept to be able to see the corrolation here.
If I paid 100% in taxes, and in return got free food, free medical coverage, free this free that, that is socialism. The money is taxed form us, goes to gov where it is then redistributed. It is the same concept. Right now we have that one a smaller scale, where a lower percentage of taxes are paid, and in return only some social programs are offered.

I.e. socialism light. If we had to pay our entire check to taxes but got everythign in return, than that would be socialism. What don't you get?

utopian socialism 
–noun (sometimes initial capital letter) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.

This is more like it. If we give it up and let the state handle it, they will better know how to distribute us to stop poverty, bad healthy, and make sure every one gets their daily ration of flowers.

Where is that happening in our society? Oh, that's right, two industries and not every player in those two industries are effected and the REASONS for state intervention in those two industries have nothing AT ALL to do with abolition of unemployment or poverty, which means, what you have defined as 'socialism' isn't really socialism according to the definition you yourself supplied here. IE, you've not a clue what you are talking about.

I never claimed we are socialists now, what I SAID IF YOU WOULD ****ING READ, is that I see us inching closer and closer. Germany or Russia did not fall overnight. It starts with the banks, oil companies, financing institutions, manufacturing etc untill it is in everything. Right now they just have a foot in the door. I am saying that this is just the first step.

Where in the above quote do I advocate that our entire system should be based on socialism?

You are arguing against a point that no one here brought up but you. None here have argued our entire system should be socialist, although you did pose the strawman argument earlier that by providing a list of socialized services must somehow imply one wishes for everything to be socialized. Why keep bringing it up to argue against it, when none here have ever offered the point to begin with?

Okay lets set this straight so we can move forward.

You post a rant listing a bunch of socialist like programs and say "ooh, what are you soo scared of we already have socialism".

I respond saying that yes some socialized programs are good, but doenst mean everything should be.

You respond saying that "but social programs cut costs, so wouldnt fiscal conservatives find that attractive"

So to me it sounds like you are promoting social services. I AM ASKING YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER so no one has to assume but you keep talking in circles.


Choose one of the following

A) I do not promote an expansion of socialized programs
B) I do promote the expansion of sozialized programs


No more assuming or talking in circles, let it end here.

I was making a comment base don my opinion

Yet your opinion is based on socialism being defined as 'tax and spend' which the definition you yourself provided does not support. Therefore, your opinion is incorrect, because the very foundation of it is incorrect.

Look I listed 2 definitions for you, those are what I am going buy. Tax and spend refers to the gov eventually soaking up most of you income but in turn providing you with essential services. IE SOCIALISM. When the state takes all your earnings and then distributes it to others, that is socialism. when they outright own your land and there is no private enterprise, than that is communism. A thin line.

If i'm a 5 year old, than you are thick as a ****ing rock.

The definition you yourself provided does not mention either of taxing or spending as defining socialism. Who does that leave here as being 'dumb?'

Why are you so stuck on this tlaking point? I made ym case for why I feel that the definition above of utopian socialism is related to tax and spend. Taxing everything and then spending it on social programs for the people is socialism. right now they only tax SOME and spend SOME on social services, ie socialism light as I described above.

Get off the talking point and realize what it is I am saying here.

It is the first step,

Oh I get it. There will be rationing under health care, but you can't prove it outside of the Psychic Friends Network, just as having private companies selling insurance will inevitably lead to either a socialist or communist US, which you also can't prove outside of the Psychic Friends Network. I get it.

Your the onyl one saying I am tlaking to psychics. You cannot know the future any better than I can, you can only make educated guesses on how it will play out. Do you believe you are so high and mighty that you can see that future? If so I doubt you would be here, regurgitating the same argumetn over and over. People protested big gov in the past saying that it would get out of control, they were coutnered by arrogant pompous asses like you saying dont worry, it will be fine. a depression and several recessions later, we are back to square one, we ran out of money and the people are out of work.

So what do people like you advocate to fix it? MORE runnaway spending, HIGHER taxes, MORE government is the solution. By allowing gov to take over more marketshare we are taking another step. you are too short minded to be able to see this. <--- I got this one from my bonus psych points from calling the psychic network so often :roll:

Like I said, it never happens overnight, it is done in steps.

Learn some history and you will see how we got into this mess. It didn't happen overnight, it takes time, and many steps. Creating the fed reserve was hailed as a great thing back when it happened, some people said that this is a step in the wrong direction, and just putting a bandaid onthe issue. But people like you were there to make fun of everyone and say oh no this will be great, cummon guys you can't see the future why are you so paranoid, what is creating the CIA, the fed reserve, growing gov etc going to hurt us in the future?

LOOK AT US NOW.

Communism is where the state runs your shit,

In two industries, with not even every player in those two industries involved?

It never started with EVERY industry, it starts with the essential ones, slowly, and as it gains speed the gov has an investment in more and more untill they run it. This is just the start.

It's kind of commie. Socialism is the step right before communism, but they have a lot of the same founding principles.

Based on wild paranoid fantasies and a definition of socialism that no dictionary supports.

If you don't believe that socialism is the step right before communism, than please learn more about Karl Marx, who said exactly that. Socialism is the transition that occurs after capitalism, but before communism.

This is how it starts, the gov starts regulating ina way to where they have more and then complete control of certain industires, creating the illusion that these industries are still operating in the private sector. Then when the regulations choke it out, the feds bail them out and say "we are paying for this now so we get to make the rules".

BOO SCARY GOVERNMENT!

Like most liberals you have no debate to brign to the table, just taunts and shit talking. But don't worry, the dems are in power and you will get your way regardless of how I feel, and we will see what fruits become of the seeds that are being planted.


If you want government running everything, than feel free to move to any of the countries that do this. Meanwhile, we are trying to make things work andmaintain our freedom and own the fruits of our labor here.

What works in Sweden, canada etc, may not work here.

Except for British health care, which is an EXACT representation of how 3200 will be in the US, right?

No, 3200 s not anywhere even remotely close to it. I was using the NHS examples to prove that when gov takes over complete system they will ration just like private insurance does. it was so counter you argument that gov wouldnt ration, only private companies.

3200 is not at all socialized int he sense that NHS is.

Yes my friend, growing the size of government historically has led to more power for the people... It's like you just don't get it.

You've not a shred of proof 3200 is growing the government. Ptrivate insueres will be selling insurance under 3200. All you have are paranoid fantasies about what may happen in the future, when you've no reason whatsoever to believe the paranoia.

Wait wait, this explains it all. So you think that since the bill includes the fact that private insurance companies will still be able to sell insurance, you are under the impression that there is NO increase in government as a result of 3200? LOLOOLOOLO, wow. I am sure I misread that. Say again, 3200 will not increase government at all?

A) Yes 3200 will increase government's role in health care/ insurance
B) No 3200 will not increase government's role in health care/ insurance at all

Everything I have said has been my opinion on the end result of all this. You can't prove anything either, as it is in the future and has not happened.

If I can't prove government intervention into two industries will lead to a 100% socialized US, what reason would I possibly have to ASSUME it? I am not trying to prove ANYTHING. All I am saying is without EVIDENCE to back up your paranoid fears, I have no reason to take your paranoid fears seriously.

No you are saying that I am crazy, and that in the future, steps like the ones we are discussing will not lead to government becoming larger and more invasive. What proof do you have? In the past, as government has grown, has it become larger and more invasive? Patriot act maybe?

I have more proof on my side than you do, but in the end we are both just taking a guess at what the future will look like. You ASSUME you know, but like me you are just stating an opinion based on your understanding of things.

You can only make an educated guess. You and me are doing the same thing.

No we are not. We learned from the Swedish banking crisis of the 90s, as well as the crash of 29, that in situations such as this, we must expand the money supply and ease the credit squeeze to avoid depression. We did. It worked. You can claim it is due to some secret government conspiracy all you wish. It doesn't make it true, particularly given your lack of evidence.

By what measure has it worked? Who is to say the market wouldn't have recovered without his stimulis. So far all we see is programs that costed millions just to pay a few workers 30k or less. Look at cash for clunkers, the first time homebuyers credit. We are spending a grip of cash just to buy a few low paying jobs.


Lookat just in today's news:

"Selling the bonds required to fund one temporary 'stimulus' job will take enough capital out of the private sector to destroy four 'real' jobs."

http://www.fark.com/cgi/go.pl?i=4764...ent_97503.html

1. People have to do their own cost controls, just as you do with any other purchase. The time to find out a prescription costs $300 is not when you pick it up at the pharmacy, but when the doctor hands it to you in his office. You ask how much it costs. The doctor won't know, so have a nurse call the pharmacy to find out. If it is $300, you tell the doctor you need a generic for two reasons; 1. the cost is too high 2. under patent medications have been on the market for too short of a time period to know the full side effects. Tell them you want a generic which has been on the market for 40-50 years such that all risks are known. (Not that I know this from personal experience - HA!)

That's what my Dr does. If I get to the pharmacy and something is too expensive I call his ass up and tell him to send the generic my way. Personally I am relaly against most pharmaceuticals just from personal experience.

2. Do not take a doctor's word simply because they say it. If a doctor tells you you need surgery, ask how much it costs. If you can not afford it, tell the doctor you need some other method other than surgery. If a dentist tells you you need four crowns and you have six cavities, and you know that dentist is moving his office into a very expensive high rise, get a second opinion. You might find out you only have two tiny cavities that are so small novocaine won't even be necessary. (Not that I know this from personal experience - HA!)

This sounds like our current system, it's what i've been doing for years.

3. Some companies offer health accounts for employees. At the beginning of the year, each employee is given $1500 in a health savings account. At the end of the year, whatever money has not been spent on health care, the employee gets to keep. What does this do? It makes employees become cost conscious in making health care services, just as they are in every other purchase in life. See #1 & 2 above.

Lol you mean the exact plan the republicans have been promoting but liberals have beens saying doesn't work? I have a smiliar deal at my company where they give you a card and you can also use it for things like OTC flu medicine etc.

4. 676 - There are ways to standardize treatments at lower costs. If we can treat condition A with either of drug B or C and drug B costs less, then we mandate that as a first option, in the 80-90% of the cases where it's applicable (and barring that drug from those allergic to it. etc.)

You mean conservative treatment? Yes HMO's do that today.

no one is going to get a PHD to get a job that makes 40k a year.

And I won't use a doctor whose in it strictly for the money. See #2 above.

Im not saying all in it for the money, but these people spend the better part of their lives geting an education and come out of it with massive school loans. there will be no incentive to go through all of that if your only making 40k a year. lets be practical.

You want better care and cover everyone without it costing us anything.

Provide a post and direct quote where I have ever claimed such or I will consider the above claim withdrawn due to falsehood.

What is it that you want then? You saying there are all these ways to get it done considerable cheaper. I said its going to be expensive, you said "it doens't HAVE to be expensive". I am saying that covering 50 million additional people and giving them all good insurance plans is going to cost more money. not sure how you can argue with that.

I ASSUME... that we have a deal :wink:

See above. You apparently can't control yourself.

Youve done more assuming than I have in this whole thing. You even assume that i'm assuming :wink:

No, the whole point is that I was saying that in my opinion, this will occur.

Then why didn't you say so to begin with, instead of pretending that England's single payer system would have any similarity AT ALL to how 3200 plays out in the US?

I have said from the beginning that I am predicting this is where it will go, and that it's only my opinion. neither me nor you can tell what will happen in the future. The difference is that I can see that.

You cant say it won't happen either,

I refuse to believe your vast government conspiracy theory solely due to the lack of evidence that you freely admit.

I don't mean to make it like its a vast gov conspiracy, but i'm saying that gov tends to naturally wnt to grow itself. i think that is quite apparent if you take 5 minutes to look around. I predict, in my opinion, that it will continue to do so, and that this is not good. You assume that it will not be good. Just different opinions.

Have you been living under a freaking rock? Obama has made it the state of his message that he will not sign any HC reform bill that adds even 1$ to the deficit. How can you be unaware of this?

It's suspiciously similar to the ASSERTION previously addressed wherein you claimed I believe all could have health care at no cost. I never said any such thing. It's simply another one of your assumptions.

No, you direct quote when i said that Obama wants to do this without adding a dollar ot the deficit was:

???????????? WHO has ever claimed it would not cost anything, other than you in the above quote?

To deny that Obama said he will not sign any health care reform bill that would add even 1$ to the deficit, is to deny reality. he said it in his address to congress right ebfore he was called a lier. He has promised that he will not sign anything that adds to the deficit. So to answer your question, OBAMA SAID IT.

When did I say I get my advice from the radio? Let me guess, you ASSUME (I thought you hated people who assume?) that I am a Rush limbaugh fan or something huh?

You argue the same nonsensical positions that the radio entertainers do. It's a reasonable assumption to make. You even use the same definitions of 'socialism' that they do, which can not be found in any dictionary.

Snuppy, assuming again, while complaining that I assume to much.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...umnist_hassett

How cute! An economist for both Bush and McCain is blaming the housing bubble on the Democrats! Who knew?

How is that any different thana liberal president and congress blaming everything on bush?

All because a Republican economist blames the entire situation on the Democrats? Let me ask you a question. Do you know what an 'unbiased source' is?

There is no such thing nowadays. I love how liberals think MSNBC etc is unbiased but anything from fox or that disagrees with them is bias.

Both sides are biased, it's how it works.

[sgreger1]

Snuppy, let's just face it. We see the world differently, nothing wrong with that.

You believe gov can do no bad and think I am just scared of big scarry government.

I think growing gov's role in the private sector is bad

You think growing gov will elad to economic and social prosperity.

Only time will tell. At this point we are arguing about the future. So well revisit this in 10 years.

[chadizzy1]

.......

Longest post EVER?

[sgreger1]

.......

Longest post EVER?

I'm going for the gold baby. That's why the sign reads do not enter, as no one but Snuppy would actually waste their time reading it lol.

[VBSnus]

Let me make sure I read that right. You are on of those people that thinks we should ban trans fat, and allow the government to have the power to decide what is good for us and what is not? Cummon, what about choice? What if I want to eat a steak or snus a little? Smoke a cigarette? Put extra butter on my toast?

Very unamerican.

In most cases, trans fat is a partially hydrogenated (chemically altered for better usage) soybean oils made from soy beans that are genetically altered and patented by Monsanto. The government has allowed this company to alter food and patent it then force natural growers out of business. The government has made corn the ingredient of choice in America by taxing the hell out of sugar while subsidizing the corn industry, thus allowing our sugars to be replaced with HFCS and modified starches. The government allows the meat industry to sell meat without disclosing to consumers where the meat comes from. If anyone were for stricter regulations on this, I'd think you would be.

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm not saying regulate whether you want extra butter on your toast. Stop exaggerating. I'm saying we should regulate the addition of chemically and genetically modified foods which are used to inflate our food supply at low costs. As in, the FDA should do their ****ing job.

Nestle is Swiss owned. In Switzerland, Nestle products are made of the finest ingredients. In the US, it's the cheapest shit money can buy to pump out the cheapest piece of crap we Americans will ingest. In Sweden, snus is wholesome and pure, good and clean. In America, tobacco is overloaded with carcinogens and altered ingredients making it more unhealthy.

Regulation on ingestibles is a good thing unless you exaggerate the point.

While yes they are driven by greed. They basicly were saying that the gov has our backs and if we run this scheme untill it blows we will get biled out anyways so **** it. On this one we will have to agree to disagree.

That's not my problem, it's not the government's problem, and it's not the dems' problem. Their assumption was a poor business choice and many of them are now out of business (look at all the bank failures in the last couple years). That'd be like someone who blows their income because the government is issuing a tax rebate, then complains that it's the government's fault for giving them the idea that money may be more available.

Or better yet, think of some Hollywood star. They think they're so important, they can do whatever the hell they want and the judge will let them off so **** it. They get caught and get put in jail. Is it the government's fault because they once gave another star a pass?

Republicans are the "party of personal responsibility". They should admit that the companies did wrong, not try to blame it on someone else.

[sgreger1]

In most cases, trans fat is a partially hydrogenated (chemically altered for better usage) soybean oils made from soy beans that are genetically altered and patented by Monsanto. The government has allowed this company to alter food and patent it then force natural growers out of business. The government has made corn the ingredient of choice in America by taxing the hell out of sugar while subsidizing the corn industry, thus allowing our sugars to be replaced with HFCS and modified starches. The government allows the meat industry to sell meat without disclosing to consumers where the meat comes from. If anyone were for stricter regulations on this, I'd think you would be.

I'm for regulation as in the FDA doing what they were hired to do, but not banning things. While I agree there is all kind of nasty stuff out there, if someone wants to mess themselves up and have extra butter or drink a soda I don't think it is right to tell them that it is against the rules for them to do so. You can't task government with playing nanny, because they always take their role out of context. I agree all that stuff is nasty and I personally try my absolute hardest from staying away from HFCS because I know how terrible it is on the body. But I don't know about banning it or letting the gov say you can't have it. That's a slippery slope I think.

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm not saying regulate whether you want extra butter on your toast. Stop exaggerating. I'm saying we should regulate the addition of chemically and genetically modified foods which are used to inflate our food supply at low costs. As in, the FDA should do their ****ing job.

Sorry, that's what I read it as. That's why I had to ask. I don't agree with anything GM and personally think the Gov should stop with all this market manipulation via subsidizing who they want in and taxing who they want out.

Nestle is Swiss owned. In Switzerland, Nestle products are made of the finest ingredients. In the US, it's the cheapest shit money can buy to pump out the cheapest piece of crap we Americans will ingest. In Sweden, snus is wholesome and pure, good and clean. In America, tobacco is overloaded with carcinogens and altered ingredients making it more unhealthy.

Do you own stock in Sweden? lol. yah it's sad how behind America is in this respect. the standard for quality here is so low. Take snus vs american dip. i doubt it costs any more to make snus (probably less), yet American dip is such an inferior product down the line.

Regulation on ingestibles is a good thing unless you exaggerate the point.

As you know, my issue is that gov tends to exaggerate the point. When you give them control they will do jsut what you listed, and use that power to subsidize their buddies and tax the competition.

That's not my problem, it's not the government's problem, and it's not the dems' problem. Their assumption was a poor business choice and many of them are now out of business (look at all the bank failures in the last couple years). That'd be like someone who blows their income because the government is issuing a tax rebate, then complains that it's the government's fault for giving them the idea that money may be more available.

Im not defending any of these predatory lenders. They are a huge part of what got us here. I also blame people who took loans they couldn't afford. But my BIGGEST issue is that the gov would have the audacity to see these companies failing, and then decide maybe we shoul spend a trillion $ to bail them out, even after they continue to fail after the first round of bailouts.

Competition, free market, let those who don't spend their money wisely fail, and allow someone else to fill the gap. Don't prop up losers, it's a losing game.

Or better yet, think of some Hollywood star. They think they're so important, they can do whatever the hell they want and the judge will let them off so **** it. They get caught and get put in jail. Is it the government's fault because they once gave another star a pass?

I'm glad you bring up this analogy. Fannie and Freddy (& friends) were just like a paris hilton, they figure they can do whatever they want and will get bailed out by daddy government if they **** it up. Guess they were right, do you blame them?

Republicans are the "party of personal responsibility". They should admit that the companies did wrong, not try to blame it on someone else.

I don't think anyone is trying to say the companies had nothing to do with it, i've heard a lot fo backlash against these companies by the republicans and they routinely say "NO, they FAILED, DO NOT BAIL THEM OUT WITH OUR MONEY". But then sellouts like Bush and Obama go ahead and give us the finger.

I, as an individual, believe in personal responsibility. And I also believe in the basic concepts of business. If you build your business on a house of cards, and the wind comes and blows them down, than that is to bad for you because that's what happens when you have a crappy business model, you lose your money.

But the fed gov had to come in and bail them out, which liberals like Snuppy hail as what is saving our economy. This is not how the system is supposed to work. We should not be rewarding bad behavior, or companies that SENT THE NATION INTO THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

This recession was a genuine moment where liberals could have accomplished their goal against the evil capitalist corporations. They could have let these huge players fall and teach all those rich execs a lesson that you better be more carefull with the money next time.. could have left them without jobs.. But instead the liberals decided to prop them up and allow million dollar bonuses as a reward, something I would only expect to come out of Bush, but yet here we are with more of the same, like I constantly preach untill my face explodes.

* insert emoticon of face exploding *

[Owens187]

Info overload......

My brain hurts.

[daruckis]

this wins the most boring thread i never actually read award.

[sgreger1]

this wins the most boring thread i never actually read award.

Disclaimer: Reading this thread and/or posting in this thread w/o reading it may cause cancer.

[sgreger1]

Oh, and Snuppy, the reason I assume that gov will ration after this is imposed is based on the following :


Pg. 26 of Pelosi's bill:

"the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."

[VBSnus]

Oh, and Snuppy, the reason I assume that gov will ration after this is imposed is based on the following :


Pg. 26 of Pelosi's bill:

"the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."

Hey look, page 1 of every other insurance plan.

Seriously, what do you expect? Should they not include verbiage like that and therefore go bankrupt on millions before creating lines IF NEEDED?

Do you think the smoking gun, the proof of the dems treachery, is all spelled out on page 26? Or does it make more sense to say...it has to be said somewhere.

[sgreger1]

Oh, and Snuppy, the reason I assume that gov will ration after this is imposed is based on the following :


Pg. 26 of Pelosi's bill:

"the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists."

Hey look, page 1 of every other insurance plan.

Seriously, what do you expect? Should they not include verbiage like that and therefore go bankrupt on millions before creating lines IF NEEDED?

Do you think the smoking gun, the proof of the dems treachery, is all spelled out on page 26? Or does it make more sense to say...it has to be said somewhere.

VB, that was the entire point. I said insurance companies reserve the right to ration treatment, I then said that the proposed legislation where the gov runs it will also include this , because it has to. Rationing at some level has to happen with a growing number of people and with limited resources.

Snuppy was claiming that I had no basis to claim that the gov may ration and that I was just ASSUMING that maybe it would with no evidence. Then he went on to claim that they would not ration.

No i don't think the final proof of dem treachery was on page 26, but my argument is proven as true, since, in fact, the gov DOES reserve it's right to limit services should the need occur.