Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Knoell']you do not have to chose, the website you gave only shows that 5 or less percent of disposable income is saved. That does not tell us how much is spent on everything else.[/QUOTE]

Of the people who aren't spending anything on health care, what percentage of their income do you think could be spent on health care?

Are these people pissing 2% or 20% of their pay on something other than health care?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Of the people who aren't spending anything on health care, what percentage of their income do you think could be spent on health care?

Are these people pissing 2% or 20% of their pay on something other than health care?[/QUOTE]

But health care is very important for people. Shouldn't a decent chunk of their income go towards their health? Why are you so against people paying something towards something so important?

Also I do not know how much people are spending on other things, but the notion that the majority of americans are just getting by with the bare essentials is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Knoell']wow, I wonder if they ban corporations from the world, Msut really thinks all of our problems will be solved.[/QUOTE]

Knoell, it was painfully obvious from the beginning that you have no idea what you are talking about.

But that isn't an excuse for you to act in such bad faith when posting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Also I do not know how much people are spending on other things, but the notion that the majority of americans are just getting by with the bare essentials is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Saying that half of America is living paycheck to paycheck (regardless of income) isn't ridiculous.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Saying that half of America is living paycheck to paycheck (regardless of income) isn't ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

You are saying what I am saying you just dont realize it I guess.

Just because people are living paycheck to paycheck does not mean they are not being irresponsible with their money. The statistic of people living paycheck to paycheck only means that people are breaking even. I don't argue that noone is saving money lol, but I don't believe they are spending every dime on bread and water just trying to survive on the bare essentials.

"Roughly four in 10 workers (41 percent) say they often or always live paycheck to paycheck, and one in five don't set aside any money for savings each month, according to a study of more than 6,100 working Americans by the online job recruiting firm CareerBuilder.com.
The survey also found that although nearly 60 percent of workers have a set budget each pay period, 21 percent said they typically spend more than their allotted amount. When asked what puts them over budget most often, the most popular response was "eating out." "

For example someone making 100k a year could blow his weekly check on something each week, and contribute nothing to his savings and they will consider that living paycheck to paycheck.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, it was painfully obvious from the beginning that you have no idea what you are talking about.

But that isn't an excuse for you to act in such bad faith when posting.[/QUOTE]

Do you ever notice you don't ever have anything useful to add? Always criticism of everyone who disagrees with you. Always. "well, well, I know more! and you don't know anything!" It gets tiring after awhile, maybe next post you will have something useful to add, but probably not.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you ever notice you don't ever have anything useful to add?[/quote]

Coming from you knoell?

Don't kid yourself.

Always criticism of everyone who disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't that you "disagree", the problem is that almost every single response you have made has been in bad faith. You have no interest in educating yourself on this subject and you instead wish to focus on nonsense or some other bad faith irrelevancy as a response.

Always. "well, well, I know more! and you don't know anything!"
Click to expand...

Objectively no one could say that you came off as anything but willfully ignorant and demanding.

If anything I have been patient.

It gets tiring after awhile
Click to expand...

Coming from the guy who has done more than 99% percent of the legwork on this matter. Why yes, yes it does.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Coming from you knoell?

Don't kid yourself.



The problem isn't that you "disagree", the problem is that almost every single response you have made has been in bad faith. You have no interest in educating yourself on this subject and you instead wish to focus on nonsense or some other bad faith irrelevancy as a response.



Objectively no one could say that you came off as anything but willfully ignorant and demanding.

If anything I have been patient.



Coming from the guy who has done more than 99% percent of the legwork on this matter. Why yes, yes it does.[/QUOTE]

lots of legwork? lol you googled one website, that admitted the health care bill is just throwing a bunch of things at the wall to see what sticks. That is really what I want done with our trillion dollars, guesswork.

Then as we discussed its first point, you continuously insulted me, and said I didnt know what I was talking about because I disagreed that insurers were the sole problem of health insurance. When I tried to explain to you why insurers weren't the only ones responible, you went off and insulted me some more.

I don't have time for your kind of nonsense.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Then as we discussed its first point, you continuously insulted me[/quote]

It isn't an insult to say you don't know much of anything about this subject, you still don't even after I explained a few things to you.

I disagreed that insurers were the sole problem of health insurance. When I tried to explain to you why insurers weren't the only ones responible, you went off and insulted me some more.
Click to expand...

I never said they were the "only ones responsible", I did say they were a big part of the problem which is an indisputable fact. The "insults" so to speak were for the most part about you being deliberately dishonest.

I don't have time for your kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...

You also apparently don't have time to answer questions, make a coherent response or respond to things you explicitly said you would.
 
[quote name='Msut77']


This isn't directed at you at all but I see people who get so riled up about this stuff even after one points out the numbers are relatively piddling.

Spending trillions of dollars to bomb brown people for no good reason is ok for many, but the idea of a brown child getting a bowl of oatmeal on their dime causes them to lose sleep at night.

I don't really call that pragmatic.[/QUOTE]

Yep you sure did put in some great information.
 
Thank you btw, for dropping the pretense you honestly believe anything you say or have anything worthwhile to "discuss" on this issue.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are saying what I am saying you just dont realize it I guess.

Just because people are living paycheck to paycheck does not mean they are not being irresponsible with their money. The statistic of people living paycheck to paycheck only means that people are breaking even. I don't argue that noone is saving money lol, but I don't believe they are spending every dime on bread and water just trying to survive on the bare essentials.

"Roughly four in 10 workers (41 percent) say they often or always live paycheck to paycheck, and one in five don't set aside any money for savings each month, according to a study of more than 6,100 working Americans by the online job recruiting firm CareerBuilder.com.
The survey also found that although nearly 60 percent of workers have a set budget each pay period, 21 percent said they typically spend more than their allotted amount. When asked what puts them over budget most often, the most popular response was "eating out." "

For example someone making 100k a year could blow his weekly check on something each week, and contribute nothing to his savings and they will consider that living paycheck to paycheck.[/QUOTE]

I know a family of 4, who's combined income is well over 100k. They are also the poorest people I know, because they are horrible with money. Every few months they ask me for a couple hundred bucks so they can make bills.

[quote name='Knoell']Do you ever notice you don't ever have anything useful to add? Always criticism of everyone who disagrees with you. Always. "well, well, I know more! and you don't know anything!" It gets tiring after awhile, maybe next post you will have something useful to add, but probably not.[/QUOTE]

There is a reason he is probably CAG's number one ignore list member. So would you kindly stop quoting him so I don't have to see his posts all the time? :)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know a family of 4, who's combined income is well over 100k. They are also the poorest people I know, because they are horrible with money. Every few months they ask me for a couple hundred bucks so they can make bills.[/QUOTE]

Can I have a couple hundred bucks? I like money.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Thank you btw, for dropping the pretense you honestly believe anything you say or have anything worthwhile to "discuss" on this issue.[/QUOTE]

....look back on your last posts, then look at mine. Who is trying to keep talking about the issue?
 
[quote name='Knoell']....look back on your last posts, then look at mine. Who is trying to keep talking about the issue?[/QUOTE]

Certainly not you. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fucking fantasy world.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

There is a reason he is probably CAG's number one ignore list member. So would you kindly stop quoting him so I don't have to see his posts all the time? :)[/QUOTE]

ok, you said the magic words.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Certainly not you. If you think otherwise, you're living in a fucking fantasy world.[/QUOTE]

....enter random person
 
[quote name='Knoell']....look back on your last posts, then look at mine. Who is trying to keep talking about the issue?[/QUOTE]

I am.

You are locked in to your eternal struggle to make sure no goalpost ever stays in the same place twice.
 
Can anyone imagine what it must be like to play a game of darts with these people?

They wouldn't play unless you granted them the power to declare whatever they wish a bullseye.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Can anyone imagine what it must be like to play a game of darts with these people?

They wouldn't play unless you granted them the power to declare whatever they wish a bullseye.[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking that the bobbing and weaving I'm getting in the income tax thread was getting a little ridiculous. It's sausages, you see. Also Obama offered free health care except he didn't but if he did it would be a point that must be responded to. Also liberals should write conservative pieces of legislation.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was just thinking that the bobbing and weaving I'm getting in the income tax thread was getting a little ridiculous. It's sausages, you see. Also Obama offered free health care except he didn't but if he did it would be a point that must be responded to. Also liberals should write conservative pieces of legislation.[/QUOTE]

When did I say liberals should write conservative pieces of legislation? Tort reform is not a conservative piece of legislation, it is a common sense way to lower the cost of health care. Why are you politicizing it? most people agree tort reform would lower health care costs. What is the fucking problem putting it into the bill regardless of whether a democrat or republican did it?

To me you are saying, "hey its a great idea guys, and it will lower costs, but since you wont vote for the rest of the bill we wont include it, even though it would really help" what kind of bullshit is that?
 
Well it's a nice generic idea but without an actual piece of legislation that addresses tort reform (as opposed to YAY TORT REFORM PLZ) it 'doesn't amount to diddly.'
 
[quote name='Knoell']Tort reform is not a conservative piece of legislation, it is a common sense way to lower the cost of health care. Why are you politicizing it? most people agree tort reform would lower health care costs. What is the fucking problem putting it into the bill regardless of whether a democrat or republican did it?[/QUOTE]

.

EDIT: By the way, when I try to put my pants on as a shirt, and someone points this fact out to me, I don't insist I'm wearing them correctly. I think that's where you and I differ.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'].

EDIT: By the way, when I try to put my pants on as a shirt, and someone points this fact out to me, I don't insist I'm wearing them correctly. I think that's where you and I differ.[/QUOTE]

Ill just assume you dont have a response
 
What you're saying is preposterous and not deserving of a response.

Tort reform is an apolitical perspective?
Tort reform is common sense?
Tort reform has no negative consequences, intended or incidental.

That's what you're saying, and it's ridiculous. You're also acting like a petulant child, demanding something for the sake of feeling like you deserve something. The Republicans got plenty in this bipartisan bill, but offered no support. Yet you disavow that the bill is far more bipartisan compared to a single-payer universal system in favor of myths and fairy tales of the true cost of lawsuits.

I bet you also spout off ad nauseum about Liebeck vs. McDonald's (but you're probably too intellectually shallow to actually know the case to cite it), and have no idea about the history or context of the case, using two select facts of (1) someone sued McDonald's and (2) someone got a large initial award from said suit as a means of standing on your soapbox.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I was just thinking that the bobbing and weaving I'm getting in the income tax thread was getting a little ridiculous. It's sausages, you see. Also Obama offered free health care except he didn't but if he did it would be a point that must be responded to. Also liberals should write conservative pieces of legislation.[/QUOTE]

It got really surreal, down the rabbit hole, mushroom trip surreal when he started talking about Garbage Plates and I mean just aside from what is wrong with the kind of comparison.

I had a friend who went to school in upstate NY, people actually do eat them they are about as popular as any 6000 calorie meal can be and a hallowed tradition.

So yeah...
 
[quote name='homeland']We live in a capitalistic country. There will always be bottom feeders. Not everyone can be the CEO. There's only so many managers, so many dept heads.[/QUOTE]


How's that ditch coming along lol
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What you're saying is preposterous and not deserving of a response.

Tort reform is an apolitical perspective?
Tort reform is common sense?
Tort reform has no negative consequences, intended or incidental.

That's what you're saying, and it's ridiculous. You're also acting like a petulant child, demanding something for the sake of feeling like you deserve something. The Republicans got plenty in this bipartisan bill, but offered no support. Yet you disavow that the bill is far more bipartisan compared to a single-payer universal system in favor of myths and fairy tales of the true cost of lawsuits.
[/QUOTE]
This is a rather complex issue and the actual costs are very difficult to quantify. A lot of times, the question of whether to do a certain test or procedure does not carry black and white answers. There is a natural human bias to want to know or to want to do something and this causes us to perhaps do more things than we should. Plus, the fear of legal liability (real or perceived), places us in a position in which more studies are ordered, since the perception is that you are more likely to be sued for missing a diagnosis rather than causing harm through an unnecessary study.

Anecdotally, it sure does get people more CT scans in the emergency department, which are not totally benign things... for the individual, contrast agents may cause anaphylactic reactions and may precipitate renal failure; and cumulative radiation exposure does cause a small, but real, increase in the incidence of malignancy. Plus, then there is the potential of false positive or unclear findings on scan that may lead to further more invasive diagnostic maneuvers or potentially harmful treatments.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20349156
provides a bit more perspective on the issue. Plus, searching pubmed for "defensive medicine" or "tort reform" brings up many articles with varying opinions on the issue.

I bet you also spout off ad nauseum about Liebeck vs. McDonald's (but you're probably too intellectually shallow to actually know the case to cite it), and have no idea about the history or context of the case, using two select facts of (1) someone sued McDonald's and (2) someone got a large initial award from said suit as a means of standing on your soapbox.
Click to expand...
It's really not that complex.
*Lady bought coffee.
*Lady spilled it on her thighs cuz she's clumsy.
*Lawyer was called and said the coffee was too hot (even though it was pretty much the same temperature as any other coffee that get's served around the world).
*McDonald's was sued.
*Jury, made up of people functioning on little more than brainstems, awards lady a lot of money.
*Appeals were brought up and the parties settle for less money.

-As much as I dislike McDonald's and their food, it was a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone with marginal intelligence knows that coffee has the potential to be hot... if you spill it on yourself, then it's your fault... it's not as if the container malfunctioned....
 
Doesn't doctors have insurance on lawsuits like this, so why does that have to effect healthcare cost? I would have to guess that by the doctors having to pay insanely amounts for insurance or lawsuits, then they bring down the cost to the healthcare?

I just think it's crazy to think that in all cases, it's linked through Insurance companies....

Tort reform will help, but that isn't going to touch the major portion of why healtcare costs so much.
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...generates_plenty_of_criticism_opposing_views/

When it was explained that the new law requires many of the newly insured to make some contribution toward their health insurance, she said: “I’m not a political science major.’’

“I know there’s a dichotomy because of what we get from the state,’’ she said. “But I just look at each of my children as a blessing.’’
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BigT']

It's really not that complex.
*Lady bought coffee.
*Lady spilled it on her thighs cuz she's clumsy.
*Lawyer was called and said the coffee was too hot (even though it was pretty much the same temperature as any other coffee that get's served around the world).
*McDonald's was sued.
*Jury, made up of people functioning on little more than brainstems, awards lady a lot of money.
*Appeals were brought up and the parties settle for less money.

-As much as I dislike McDonald's and their food, it was a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone with marginal intelligence knows that coffee has the potential to be hot... if you spill it on yourself, then it's your fault... it's not as if the container malfunctioned....[/QUOTE]

If I remember right, the coffee served was actually higher than any other coffee served at any other vender and was something like 40 degrees hotter than coffee made at home. Then if I remember right they tried to lie and say that people who bought the coffee consumed it at home, when their studies showed people consumed it in the car while driving, and that the problem of coffee giving people 3rd degree burns had been a nagging problem for about two decades, yet the company decided not to act upon it. She may have not deserved the money she got, but the problem would not have gone fixed had she not sued and McDonalds not been given such a heavy ruling, so the case was not entirely frivolous.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']If I remember right, the coffee served was actually higher than any other coffee served at any other vender and was something like 40 degrees hotter than coffee made at home. Then if I remember right they tried to lie and say that people who bought the coffee consumed it at home, when their studies showed people consumed it in the car while driving, and that the problem of coffee giving people 3rd degree burns had been a nagging problem for about two decades, yet the company decided not to act upon it. She may have not deserved the money she got, but the problem would not have gone fixed had she not sued and McDonalds not been given such a heavy ruling, so the case was not entirely frivolous.[/QUOTE]

Why would a company spend good money to fix a problem when they can do nothing, continue to make piles of money and hope they never get called out on it? That is what free market, deregulation, and capitalism is all about, right? The stupid woman could have chosen to get her coffee anywhere else. Its not McD's fault she got it from them! :^o
Its so easy to write posts like a neo-con. I just hold my breath until I get really woozy then I try to forget anything except what talking heads on admittedly biased opinion shows that masquerade as news programs tell me. So easy!
 
[quote name='BigT']

It's really not that complex.
*Lady bought coffee.
*Lady spilled it on her thighs cuz she's clumsy.
*Lawyer was called and said the coffee was too hot (even though it was pretty much the same temperature as any other coffee that get's served around the world).
*McDonald's was sued.
*Jury, made up of people functioning on little more than brainstems, awards lady a lot of money.
*Appeals were brought up and the parties settle for less money.

-As much as I dislike McDonald's and their food, it was a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone with marginal intelligence knows that coffee has the potential to be hot... if you spill it on yourself, then it's your fault... it's not as if the container malfunctioned....[/QUOTE]

i thought that it was so hot that the glue holding the cup together failed and the coffee spilled out of the bottom on to her lap. still an outrageous settlement, but i dont believe it was because she was clumsy.
 
I've never heard the glue thing, so I'm not sure if that's right. AFAIK she spilled it herself when she took the top off to put shit in it (she wasn't driving or moving at the time, but was in the car).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i thought that it was so hot that the glue holding the cup together failed and the coffee spilled out of the bottom on to her lap. still an outrageous settlement, but i dont believe it was because she was clumsy.[/QUOTE]

OK, you guys are making me doubt myself...

So I looked at the literature:
McCann et al.
University of Miami Law Review

56 U. Miami L. Rev. (2001-2002)

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/umialr56&div=13&g_sent=1#123
(you may need to be on a university VPN).

The claims that she made against McDonald's were the following:
1. The coffee was dangerously hot (i.e., they argued that the product was unreasonably dangerous).
2. There was no warning on the cup indicating that the coffee was dangerous.

*Note: there was no failure of the cup; in fact, the cups were considered to quite high quality with spill-proof lids - that was not disputed. She freely admitted that she spilled it on herself through her own fault, by taking the lid off and then losing balance of the cup. She was a passenger in a car and was trying to pour sugar and cream into the coffee while holding it between her legs. The cup tipped over when she was attempting this. She never denied the fact that the accident was her own fault.

To throw in some medical analysis - old people have really thin and brittle skin with little subcutaneous fat (the only thing shown to improve this is human growth hormone)... go to your grandparents and pinch their skin; note how it tents... she was 79 y/o... that would make her burn much easier... plus, she did not immediately remove her clothes, which contributed to the contact time.

In terms of the coffee temp:
-It seems like coffee served at McDonalds was served at 180-190 deg F.
-Plaintiff claimed that other restaurants served it at 150-160 deg F.
-McDondalds claimed 180-190 is the industry standard
The paper didn't describe who was right... I'll look this up next.
 
[quote name='xycury']Doesn't doctors have insurance on lawsuits like this, so why does that have to effect healthcare cost? I would have to guess that by the doctors having to pay insanely amounts for insurance or lawsuits, then they bring down the cost to the healthcare?
[/quote]
Yeah, insurance != free. Someone still has to pay for insurance premiums, which for certain physicians can run 100K-200K per year and, yes, the costs get passed down.

Tort reform will help, but that isn't going to touch the major portion of why healtcare costs so much.
Click to expand...

True. We need a whole new vision of how healthcare should be doled out. It is not free and it is not an unlimited resource!
 
[quote name='Msut77']When it was explained that the new law requires many of the newly insured to make some contribution toward their health insurance, she said: “I’m not a political science major.’’

“I know there’s a dichotomy because of what we get from the state,’’ she said. “But I just look at each of my children as a blessing.’’[/QUOTE]

That's what happens when the movement is founded on general 'feel good' principles that aren't based on policy. You end up in hypocritical positions, or a 'dichotomy'.
 
[quote name='BigT']Looked briefly and can only find non-blinded anecdotal reports of temperature:



http://www.planetfeedback.com/blog/pfb+investigates+-+coffee+temperaturea+hot+subject/318627[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the temperature in 2009, *after* successful litigation against them, is a really good indicator of the temperature in 1992. Because once they get a multi-million-dollar award levied against them for scalding hot coffee, they're not going to change how hot they keep it.

Do me a favor: go research how the sizable award in the initial suit was calculated, come back here and report on it.
 
Didn't we already cover the McDonald's coffee story?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6237327#post6237327

The coffee was within the temperature range recommended by coffee experts.
The plaintiff in this case put the hot cup of coffee between her knees and took the lid off.
The plaintiff was a regular, repeat customer of this exact McDonald's and thus should have reasonably known the coffee was hot.
The initial award was given not because the coffee was "too hot", but because the Jury felt McDonald's didn't do enough to warn her the coffee was hot.

PS: Coffee is hot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, the temperature in 2009, *after* successful litigation against them, is a really good indicator of the temperature in 1992. Because once they get a multi-million-dollar award levied against them for scalding hot coffee, they're not going to change how hot they keep it.

Do me a favor: go research how the sizable award in the initial suit was calculated, come back here and report on it.[/QUOTE]

I've got to go to work... night shift...

It's in the article I posted previously... the majority was punitive damages against McDonalds, but I don't recall the details.
 
From the WSJ:
POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
Click to expand...

Can we stop talking about that bullshit case now?

I see Ruined is back on the site. We're still waiting to hear why Obamacare would throw the current system in the trash.

[quote name='Ruined']Its not so much that I oppose any government reform, I just oppose it on the scale that the house/senate/democrats are proposing. There are a few obvious key areas our current healthcare system could use improvement (which I am not going to repeat over and over again), but that does not mean we have to throw our current healthcare system in the trash.[/QUOTE]

Bullshit unsubstantiated void of facts claims.
 
[quote name='ninju D']Why would a company spend good money to fix a problem when they can do nothing, continue to make piles of money and hope they never get called out on it? That is what free market, deregulation, and capitalism is all about, right? The stupid woman could have chosen to get her coffee anywhere else. Its not McD's fault she got it from them! :^o
Its so easy to write posts like a neo-con. I just hold my breath until I get really woozy then I try to forget anything except what talking heads on admittedly biased opinion shows that masquerade as news programs tell me. So easy![/QUOTE]

WTF are talking about. I can't even really understand the point you were trying to make about the post however, I was like maybe 10 when this happened so excuse me if my information is wrong, I wasn't really into reading anything beyond Goosebumps at the time.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Didn't we already cover the McDonald's coffee story?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6237327#post6237327

The coffee was within the temperature range recommended by coffee experts.
The plaintiff in this case put the hot cup of coffee between her knees and took the lid off.
The plaintiff was a regular, repeat customer of this exact McDonald's and thus should have reasonably known the coffee was hot.
The initial award was given not because the coffee was "too hot", but because the Jury felt McDonald's didn't do enough to warn her the coffee was hot.[/QUOTE]
You should read the judge's comments before you say things so goddamn stupid that it validates everything I think about walmart employees. For the same time investment, you could have read the actual opinion.

The coffee cup incident. The perfect experiment in self-identifying intellectual laziness and sheer stupidity. Msut makes more sense every day.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You should read the judge's comments before you say things so goddamn stupid that it validates everything I think about walmart employees. For the same time investment, you could have read the actual opinion.

The coffee cup incident. The perfect experiment in self-identifying intellectual laziness and sheer stupidity. Msut makes more sense every day.[/QUOTE]

What, exactly, of those four things was incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top