Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are you willing to stipulate 50% of Americans have substandard health care provided by the free market or will those goalposts move, too?[/QUOTE]

What percentage of Americans have a substandard diet?
What amount of control should we give the government over our mealtime planning?
 
Are you saying the diet of Americans has nothing to do with their current health status? I mean, it's fairly obvious that most Americans have a poor diet that could lead to health problems down the line (weight, diabetes, heart issues, etc.) Controlling their diets is one way to lower health care costs.
 
It is even more obvious that you try to change the subject at every opportunity.

We're not going to change the subject UNLESS you want to assert the percentage of Americans with substandard care from private insurance is irrelevant to your position.

Is your position that you're opposed to the socializing medicine irrespective to private insurance's ability to provide adequate care to all Americans?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']It is even more obvious that you try to change the subject at every opportunity.

We're not going to change the subject UNLESS you want to assert the percentage of Americans with substandard care from private insurance is irrelevant to your position.

Is your position that you're opposed to the socializing medicine irrespective to private insurance's ability to provide adequate care to all Americans?[/QUOTE]

I'm saying the percentage of Americans who can't get something is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm saying the percentage of Americans who can't get something is irrelevant to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's very relevant. Since the idea of "insurance for all" is kind of the point.
 
[quote name='dorino']Actually, it's very relevant. Since the idea of "insurance for all" is kind of the point.[/QUOTE]

If "Insurance for all" is your goal, then, no it isn't relevant. It wouldn't matter if 99.9% of all people are covered or if 0.01% of all people are covered - if you truly wanted "insurance for all", the percentage wouldn't matter to you.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Keep on ducking and dodging.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you want - I answered you directly. I don't believe the percentage of people who can get something is relevant to the government's responsibility to provide that something for them. Be it health care or otherwise.
 
Here...

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Is your position that you're opposed to the socializing medicine irrespective to private insurance's ability to provide adequate care to all Americans?[/QUOTE]

No, because that'd be a dumbass position. Private insurance doesn't provide health care of any kind. Doctors and hospitals do.

My position is... (see above).
 
Then why do you object to something like medicare for all? Public health insurance doesn't provide healthcare of any kind. Doctors/hospitals do. So the rationing of healthcare seems dubious.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/12/kyl-berwick-credit/[/QUOTE]

So now in order to support one part of a gigantic bill one must support the entire thing, else be discredited for not supporting the entire thing that includes the thing they support separately. Gotcha.


I can make it more simple:

Republican Congressman: "I support no more babies dieing of preventable diseases"
Democratic Congressman: "Well if you support page 41 of the 1500 page bill, you are going to vote for it right?"
Republican Congressman: "Of course not I dont agree with the majority of it"
Democratic Congressman: "Oh well it passed anyway, your loss"
Months later.....
Republican Congressman: "I supported that we take measures to stop babies dieing from preventable diseases"
Think Progress: "How could he of possibly supported that measure on page 41 when he voted against the entire 1500 pages!"
 
Knoell do you think there was actually something resembling a healthcare bill (note this means more than "tort reform") Republicans would have voted for? Are you just going to ignore the fact they are basically running on repealing the entire thing?

If so you are a bigger lost cause than even I thought.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell do you think there was actually something resembling a healthcare bill (note this means more than "tort reform") Republicans would have voted for? Are you just going to ignore the fact they are basically running on repealing the entire thing?

If so you are a bigger lost cause than even I thought.[/QUOTE]

So now this is about the entire health care reform bill? I thought it was about you ridiculing a Republican Senator for supporting one particular part of it?
 
Now you're just plain ignoring what Kyl said.

"Well, one of the things we did in the health care legislation..."

Well, there ain't a "we" there, hombre. Kyl and every Republican voted against it. "We" didn't do shit.
 
Duh. Obviously, if you vote against something, then you're 100% against it in every aspect.

I'm going to propose a bill that toughens punishment on those who molest babies and makes it legal for people to throw poop at one another.

Obviously anyone who votes against this bill is for baby rape.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Duh. Obviously, if you vote against something, then you're 100% against it in every aspect.

I'm going to propose a bill that toughens punishment on those who molest babies and makes it legal for people to throw poop at one another.

Obviously anyone who votes against this bill is for baby rape.[/QUOTE]

Once a week or so, I click 'view post' for your pants-on-head stupid tripe.

Your argument is a red herring. Nobody is arguing that Kyl 'is for baby rape.'

You're defending Kyl TAKING fuckING CREDIT FOR A BILL HE DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF. It's not a matter of support for one thing or another, it's (and I'll use caps again so perhaps it'll sink into you Dr. Thunder-dulled brain) TAKING fuckING CREDIT FOR A BILL HE DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF.

He deserves to be called out for patting himself on the back for something he didn't do.

Alternately, if we're going this route, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm really proud of my contributions to stopping the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. We did a great job stopping the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of our planet. Through our efforts, we've begun the cleanup of the discharged oil; something else we have done an excellent job of fixing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Once a week or so, I click 'view post' for your pants-on-head stupid tripe.[/QUOTE]

Myke, whatever. Go back to ignoring me. Save us all the trouble of your "witty" non-responses.

It's odd, I have two people on ignore and I manage to not reply to their posts. Perhaps you just have no self-control.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Once a week or so, I click 'view post' for your pants-on-head stupid tripe.

Your argument is a red herring. Nobody is arguing that Kyl 'is for baby rape.'

You're defending Kyl TAKING fuckING CREDIT FOR A BILL HE DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF. It's not a matter of support for one thing or another, it's (and I'll use caps again so perhaps it'll sink into you Dr. Thunder-dulled brain) TAKING fuckING CREDIT FOR A BILL HE DID NOT VOTE IN FAVOR OF.

He deserves to be called out for patting himself on the back for something he didn't do.

Alternately, if we're going this route, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm really proud of my contributions to stopping the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. We did a great job stopping the greatest environmental catastrophe in the history of our planet. Through our efforts, we've begun the cleanup of the discharged oil; something else we have done an excellent job of fixing.[/QUOTE]

So you are saying that he didn't support the inclusion of that part of the legislation? Its a big piece of legislation when they were working on it (all of them) did he voice his opinion against that particular piece? I have a feeling he supported that part. If that particular piece of the legislation went through all by itself do you think he would have still voted no?

Also unlike popular belief, Republicans accepted that reform was needed and supported some of the parts of bill but could not bring themselves to vote for the entire thing. To say that Republicans had no part in the process, or they didn't support any part of the bill is just dishonest. Dont get us wrong, he still doesn't support the whole bill, and neither do I and yet I can bring myself to accept pieces of it.
 
^ Let's pat our congresspersons on the back for hypotheticals, then.

Meanwhile, back in the world where we have a congress of record, he is not a part of a "we" that "did" something.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Let's pat our congresspersons on the back for hypotheticals, then.

Meanwhile, back in the world where we have a congress of record, he is not a part of a "we" that "did" something.[/QUOTE]

Sigh, so I guess the democrats who voted against funding our troops in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago wanted to strand our troops there right? I mean its all or nothing right? they either voted to fund them or not. If they voted no they dont support our troops and if they voted yes they do.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ Let's pat our congresspersons on the back for hypotheticals, then.

Meanwhile, back in the world where we have a congress of record, he is not a part of a "we" that "did" something.[/QUOTE]

Same song and dance seen from the Stimulus.

Many (and I think most at this point) who voted against it were later seen taking credit for the projects it funded.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Duh. Obviously, if you vote against something, then you're 100% against it in every aspect.

I'm going to propose a bill that toughens punishment on those who molest babies and makes it legal for people to throw poop at one another.

Obviously anyone who votes against this bill is for baby rape.[/QUOTE]

I'm in favor of more baby rape personally. Them little shits have gotten away with their rapelessness for FAR TOO LONG!

I still get a huge kick out of right wing radio's assertion that rationing will be immediate once we have national health care. Do these people not understand that when you change the word to rationing, that it doesn't mean that it already exists within private insurance. It's called "denied claims" and I'm paying for about $2,500 of it this year (tore ACL, don't do that).
I also love the imagery they use that medicare "won't allow" whatever external colonoscopy procedure it is that means you don't get the thing in the butt. What they typically fail to follow that statement with is that medicare WILL pay for PART of the standard colonoscopy and the person can pay the difference to get the fancy butt thing if they so choose.

I love it when lies are obvious, it's much more fun to pick at them.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sigh, so I guess the democrats who voted against funding our troops in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago wanted to strand our troops there right? I mean its all or nothing right? they either voted to fund them or not. If they voted no they dont support our troops and if they voted yes they do.[/QUOTE]

your poor literacy skills astound me.

it's not about support or not support. do the words 'taking credit for something' mean a fucking thing to you, or are you deliberately obtuse?
 
I think of it this way, a group of people are cooking something, everyone does their own part, but one of the people cooking gets angry and decides they no longer want to be involved. The food is finished, the people eating it love it, and the person who quit halfway through the cooking process tries to take equal credit for the food.

You want credit for the parsley, fine, but we cooked the meat and vegetables.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Also unlike popular belief, Republicans accepted that reform was needed and supported some of the parts of bill but could not bring themselves to vote for the entire thing.[/QUOTE]

Dude, how long did Republicans have control of Congress? Dude, wasn't it Republicans in 94 who said 'there is no healthcare crisis?' Dude aren't a lot of provisions in the current HCR bill actually Republican ideas? Dude didn't Heritage FOundation come up with the individual mandate idea in the first place?

When you vote against your old ideas and call them death panels and socialism, it's clear you were never serious about reforming HCR in the first place.

What Kyl did is what GOP congressman have been doing since Jan. 2009 - going to ribbon cutting events for stimulus funded projects, despite having voted against the stimulus in the first place.
 
Also unlike popular belief, Republicans accepted that reform was needed and supported some of the parts of bill but could not bring themselves to vote for the entire thing. To say that Republicans had no part in the process, or they didn't support any part of the bill is just dishonest. Dont get us wrong, he still doesn't support the whole bill, and neither do I and yet I can bring myself to accept pieces of it.
Click to expand...

Knoell might not be that dim and is rather just shamelessly dishonest.
 
Politics 101, cling to things that work out and people like, distance yourself from things that fail and people don't like. So basically they're going to try and take credit for whatever small bits they can. If it doesn't work out later on, expect them to deny any hand in it at all.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think of it this way, a group of people are cooking something, everyone does their own part, but one of the people cooking gets angry and decides they no longer want to be involved. The food is finished, the people eating it love it, and the person who quit halfway through the cooking process tries to take equal credit for the food.

You want credit for the parsley, fine, but we cooked the meat and vegetables.[/QUOTE]


He was trying to take credit for the whole bill? huh I thought he was trying to take credit for that single part of it, and still wants the entire bill taken down and redone the right way. He can support that single part of it all he wants, and still be against the bill as a whole. How hard is this for you people to understand? You people are fooling yourselves here.
 
So they spend all that time and energy getting something they wanted in the bill, vote against the bill when the time comes, then go around saying "that little part there, yeah that's us".

Even Knoell must realize that no conservative was going to vote for this unless they got their way on everything. So basically they got some things they wanted inserted, knowing it would pass even without any of their votes, then they pat themselves on the back for the things they got inserted into the bill, without a single one of them helping to get the bill passed. So Basically they can thank the Democrats for giving them some of the shit they wanted.
 
[quote name='Clak']So they spend all that time and energy getting something they wanted in the bill, vote against the bill when the time comes, then go around saying "that little part there, yeah that's us".

Even Knoell must realize that no conservative was going to vote for this unless they got their way on everything. So basically they got some things they wanted inserted, knowing it would pass even without any of their votes, then they pat themselves on the back for the things they got inserted into the bill, without a single one of them helping to get the bill passed. So Basically they can thank the Democrats for giving them some of the shit they wanted.[/QUOTE]

There was basically zero they could have given them to get their votes, they had a scorched earth policy and they ended up looking like bigger tools than usual.
 
First off, support is a relative term, I doubt the majority of democrats in congress can be credited with founding half the ideas they decided to include in the bill, so yes support actually means something here.

Remember when Obama said that he has accepted a number of republican ideas and integrated them into the bill? Regardless of whether or not you agree with those ideas, since they voted no on the bill, does this mean they lose all credit for those ideas? This is basically your guys line of thought here and it is very small minded and dishonest.

Its funny that you guys are so vehemently defending a bill that you yourselves say is too lax because of republicans, and at the same time claim republicans had absolutely no part in it.
 
Whether they 'founded' it or not, they certainly supported it by voting to make it law.

Dude, they voted NO against their OLD IDEAS, some ideas that originally came from a conservative think tank.

This is typical of the Democrats though. Water down the bill to lure Republicans into voting for it. Then act surprised when they get no Republican votes.

What was the Republican opposition to the bill, towards the very end? How it was paid for right? And that individual mandate that came from Dolecare/Romneycare - they were against that too right?
 
[quote name='IRHari']
This is typical of the Democrats though. Water down the bill to lure Republicans into voting for it. Then act surprised when they get no Republican votes.

[/QUOTE]

Im fairly certain they didn't need a single republican vote, they watered it down for their fellow moderate democrats. You can blame it on the Republicans all you want, but thats the truth of it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im fairly certain they didn't need a single republican vote, they watered it down for their fellow moderate democrats. You can blame it on the Republicans all you want, but thats the truth of it.[/QUOTE]
Not voting for it and filibustering it are two different things. Republicans will magically remember this when they take over someday.
 
The republicans basically get to beat their chests about how they didn't vote for the bill, yet still take credit for at least some of it. They basically got their cake and are eating it too. Frankly the Democrats got played like a bunch of suckers.

And don't try to tell me it was done all for moderate Democrats, bipartisanship was supposed to be a part of HCR, but that died when the Republicans forgot what bipartisanship means. In their mind it means they get everything they want or they're not voting for it. Only this turned out even better really, they have a few things to brag about and still get to look good to their conservative base.
 
And they're right. Its not a mandate. One because there is no penalty.

Every person gets hit with a tax. If you buy insurance, then you dont have to pay it (You dont have to pay it anyway)
 
He's just using different verbage guys.

Certainly not going to defend Obama on this one. But, take a look at Orrin Hatch:

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
Click to expand...

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.
Click to expand...

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/02/15/republicans-spurn-once-favored-health-mandate/

derp Orrin Hatch, DERP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top