Healthcare bill debate passed

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm not trying to avoid anything, I'm trying to get you to actually say something concrete so I can trash you. You've just spouted out crazy ideological nonsense that you refuse to back up. (because you can't) You appear to be unable to speak outside of broad, right wing extremist platitudes.

Once you can articulate an argument, get back to me. The two questions I asked you were exceedingly simple and someone with even the slightest interest in honest discourse would have no trouble answering them. They aren't loaded questions, they aren't leading you anywhere, and they are totally fair.

lol, speaking of broad leftwing bloviating... It's fine that you want us to become a socialist country and have UHC but that doesn't mean those of us who speak out against such intrusions are "right wing extremist". You have offered nothing concrete to show how we'd be better off - you just claim others do it so we should to while totally disregarding the differences in governance. You can't just insert socialist medicine and expect things to work like those who's whole gov't is socialist.

Oh and your questions are irrelevant to my statement and I've already shown you as much and explained how they don't apply.

Also, you seemed to miss the questions I pose after you spout off one of your leftist yapping points. Here, try to answer this one:

What is "our stated objective for it" in your mind?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Are you implying that the prices these countries pay for health care are artificially and unsustainably low? If so, what are you basing this on? (I have never heard any credible source claim that the health care payments other countries make are such) If they are not unsustainably or artificially low, then their system is simply better.

Then since this current bill does nothing about costs, you are against it right?

 

[shira]

1. lol, you assumed and then ran with it? go figure. I did not say it was not "excessive" either. I take your answer as a "no" and then ask you to go back to my original statement which was - "it "sucks" because the gov't has it's hands all over it. Yet you leftists want the gov't to fix the problem by digging it's hands deeper into it? " So do you still need help in figuring out where the gov't has it's hands all over it? Or did your acknowledgement that we don't have a free market turn a light bulb on for you?

You wrote, that the current system sucks BECAUSE the government has its hands all over it. Back up your statement. Show us the cause and effect.

I agree with Eskimospy: You keep making a statement that A causes B, but you never produce the proof of cause and effect.

You DO understand, don't you that saying (A) "the government has its hands all over it" and (B) "the current system sucks" does NOT establish that A causes B? Surely your education is more sophisticated than that.

I could just as easily write, (A) "over half the people in our current system are covered by private insurers" and (B) "the current system sucks." According to YOUR logic, that establishes that the prevalence of private insurance - the free market - is what causes our current system to suck.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You wrote, that the current system sucks BECAUSE the government has its hands all over it. Back up your statement. Show us the cause and effect.

I agree with Eskimospy: You keep making a statement that A causes B, but you never produce the proof of cause and effect.

You DO understand, don't you that saying (A) "the government has its hands all over it" and (B) "the current system sucks" does NOT establish that A causes B? Surely your education is more sophisticated than that.

I could just as easily write, (A) "over half the people in our current system are covered by private insurers" and (B) "the current system sucks." According to YOUR logic, that establishes that the prevalence of private insurance - the free market - is what causes our current system to suck.

Ok, simple question for you. Do we have a free-market healthcare system?

Yes?
No?

 

[Mike Gayner]

It's fine that you want us to become a socialist country and have UHC but that doesn't mean those of us who speak out against such intrusions are "right wing extremist".

This always cracks me up with conservative Americans. So every other civilised nation in the word is a socialist nation? Awesome.

 

[shira]

Ok, simple question for you. Do we have a free-market healthcare system?

Yes?
No?

Stop evading. Answer the question.

Edit: Your implicit assumption is that freer markets are always better than less free markets. I don't agree, so you have to demonstrate how in THIS market - the health care market in the U.S. - the government's intervention is the reason "it sucks."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This always cracks me up with conservative Americans. So every other civilised nation in the word is a socialist nation? Awesome.

Nope, just the socialist ones.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Stop evading. Answer the question.

Answering mine will answer yours.

Stop trying to evade reality...

Ok, simple question for you. Do we have a free-market healthcare system?

Yes?
No?

 

[blackangst1]

Are you implying that the prices these countries pay for health care are artificially and unsustainably low? If so, what are you basing this on? (I have never heard any credible source claim that the health care payments other countries make are such) If they are not unsustainably or artificially low, then their system is simply better.

Absolutely I am. It is widely known that countries like Japan and UK TELL providers what procedures will cost. In the case of the UK, they make a statement "we will only pay xxx for such and such procedure". Being that the UK is essentially a single payer system, it leaves no choice but to CHARGE that amount.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Absolutely I am. It is widely known that countries like Japan and UK TELL providers what procedures will cost. In the case of the UK, they make a statement "we will only pay xxx for such and such procedure". Being that the UK is essentially a single payer system, it leaves no choice but to CHARGE that amount.

The UK (and some others have similar) have a NICE which does cost analysis and approval that basically say whether or not they'll pay for certain things/treatments based on cost.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely I am. It is widely known that countries like Japan and UK TELL providers what procedures will cost. In the case of the UK, they make a statement "we will only pay xxx for such and such procedure". Being that the UK is essentially a single payer system, it leaves no choice but to CHARGE that amount.

Uhmm, the UK is a nationalized health care system, not a single payer system. Doesn't really apply there.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. If people couldn't make a living providing health care in these countries, they wouldn't do it. If the German system (which is single payer for the purposes of this discussion) wouldn't pay enough for someone to profitably run an imaging lab, Germany just wouldn't have them. And yet...? People make a decent living in Germany practicing medicine and doctors here are going out of business charging twice as much. So what exactly is the downside here?

You are mistaking America's absurd prices for some sort of true value that is being held artificially low by other countries. They have simply designed more efficient systems and are reaping the rewards.

 

[fskimospy]

Answering mine will answer yours.

Stop trying to evade reality...

Jesus man, you really can't answer a few simple questions. I asked you to back up explicit statements you made and you've spent two pages trying to squirm out of them. All the old tricks are in play, answering a question with a question (didn't your mom tell you not to do that?), retreating to definitions, a descent into pedantry, all of them. All trying desperately not to provide evidence for your broad, unsupportable statements. Now you're trying it with Shira too.

I asked you these questions first, they were fair, and I won't answer a single thing you ask until you stop evading and answer them. I hope nobody else does either. It's sad that I have to treat you like this.

EDIT: By the way, did anyone notice that CAD's endorsing a Tea Party candidate in his signature? Ahahahahaa. At least people here make it easy to spot the crazies.

 

[fskimospy]

This always cracks me up with conservative Americans. So every other civilised nation in the word is a socialist nation? Awesome.

They just don't understand what socialism is. The conservatives in America are so far to the right as compared to any other mainstream party in any other industrialized nation on earth that I'm sure nearly every other party looks pretty socialist to them.

Hell, they spend tons of time calling the Democratic Party a bunch of socialists and communists. The party that is having extreme difficulty finding the ideological will to set up a government competitor in the free market... are socialists. It's sad when our 'left' party is a 'right' party in the rest of the world, but we're slowly catching up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Jesus man, you really can't answer a few simple questions. I asked you to back up explicit statements you made and you've spent two pages trying to squirm out of them. All the old tricks are in play, answering a question with a question (didn't your mom tell you not to do that?), retreating to definitions, a descent into pedantry, all of them. All trying desperately not to provide evidence for your broad, unsupportable statements. Now you're trying it with Shira too.

I asked you these questions first, they were fair, and I won't answer a single thing you ask until you stop evading and answer them. I hope nobody else does either. It's sad that I have to treat you like this.

EDIT: By the way, did anyone notice that CAD's endorsing a Tea Party candidate in his signature? Ahahahahaa. At least people here make it easy to spot the crazies.

I can answer the questions just fine, however I'd rather you find the answers yourself by answering my questions.

BTW, the candidate in my sig is my uncle you twit. He is an Independent candidate that left the GOP because it became Dem-lite.

 

[fskimospy]

I can answer the questions just fine, however I'd rather you find the answers yourself by answering my questions.

BTW, the candidate in my sig is my uncle you twit. He is an Independent candidate that left the GOP because it became Dem-lite.

Well I'm glad you're supporting your uncle. I'm sorry to see that he's hitched himself to the tea party crazies, but you can't choose your family eh? I had an uncle who tried to sail to Cuba to exchange himself for persecuted Christian prisoners there so I feel your pain.

Oh, and you're not Socrates. Answering a question with a question is rude in most situations. (I find it far more likely that you're trying to evade being pinned down to something)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well I'm glad you're supporting your uncle. I'm sorry to see that he's hitched himself to the tea party crazies, but you can't choose your family eh? I had an uncle who tried to sail to Cuba to exchange himself for persecuted Christian prisoners there so I feel your pain.

Oh, and you're not Socrates. Answering a question with a question is rude in most situations. (I find it far more likely that you're trying to evade being pinned down to something)

No, not evading a thing. I already went through this with you earlier in the thread. If we do not have a free market, what then do we have? Gov't regulation? <GASP>
So are you really going to stake the position out that claims the gov't doesn't have it's hands all over health care? really?


Yes, can't pick family - however he didn't hitch himself to anyone. He has his own platform and is campaigning on that. If people in his district don't like what he stands for and he loses, he is fine with that - he just wants people to have a choice and then a voice. Currently they do not have a choice. The GOP put up some spineless wet noodle last time around and people grumbled they wanted a Conservative or atleast a choice to vote against the rather conservative(for a democrat in iowa) incumbent. He doesn't claim to be the brightest nor the best but he keeps his word and will tell it like it is instead of being PC or coy with his answers. <- hell I should be getting paid.. too bad I don't live in his district...

 

[cubby1223]

Haven't you two realized yet that internet arguments are *always* pointless and *always* unending?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Haven't you two realized yet that internet arguments are *always* pointless and *always* unending?

It's P&N

 

[blackangst1]

They just don't understand what socialism is. The conservatives in America are so far to the right as compared to any other mainstream party in any other industrialized nation on earth that I'm sure nearly every other party looks pretty socialist to them.

Hell, they spend tons of time calling the Democratic Party a bunch of socialists and communists. The party that is having extreme difficulty finding the ideological will to set up a government competitor in the free market... are socialists. It's sad when our 'left' party is a 'right' party in the rest of the world, but we're slowly catching up.

"Catching up"? Are you out of your fucking mind?

 

[blackangst1]

Uhmm, the UK is a nationalized health care system, not a single payer system. Doesn't really apply there.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. If people couldn't make a living providing health care in these countries, they wouldn't do it. If the German system (which is single payer for the purposes of this discussion) wouldn't pay enough for someone to profitably run an imaging lab, Germany just wouldn't have them. And yet...? People make a decent living in Germany practicing medicine and doctors here are going out of business charging twice as much. So what exactly is the downside here?

You are mistaking America's absurd prices for some sort of true value that is being held artificially low by other countries. They have simply designed more efficient systems and are reaping the rewards.

No, I understand perfectly what youre saying, and either you missed MY original point, or youre stuck on stupid. Either way, every response to this makes me scratch my head because I have no idea how you interprate my posts the way you do. Its an East/West thing.

Lets just leave it at that. Maybe it will come up in another thread and we'll try again.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I understand perfectly what youre saying, and either you missed MY original point, or youre stuck on stupid. Either way, every response to this makes me scratch my head because I have no idea how you interprate my posts the way you do. Its an East/West thing.

Lets just leave it at that. Maybe it will come up in another thread and we'll try again.

East/West? I've lived on both coasts. Maybe you're just stuck on 'incomprehensible'.

I think you are mistaking the systems paying certain prices for treatments as an edict from on high that forces people to conform and that's simply not accurate. Their prices are not artificially low, ours our artificially high.

 

[fskimospy]

Haven't you two realized yet that internet arguments are *always* pointless and *always* unending?

They aren't... just with CAD.

 

[fskimospy]

No, not evading a thing. I already went through this with you earlier in the thread. If we do not have a free market, what then do we have? Gov't regulation? <GASP>
So are you really going to stake the position out that claims the gov't doesn't have it's hands all over health care? really?

Jesus christ dude, just answer the question. I've staked no position on anything, I've just vainly attempted to have you answer two questions so simple a third grader could do it.

 

[cubby1223]

They aren't... just with CAD.

No, you as well are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. It's either that or you take pleasure in arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Pens1566]

The House doesnt have the votes without the Stupak Amendment making it into the final version. The Senate doesnt have the votes on the public option either.

I wouldnt say the bill will be signed into law or that their are overhwelming odds that is will pass because 1. passage is on shakey groung. 2. the odds are 50/50 or less. This bill is never going to pass because its going to stretch into early spring before a final vote finally occurs and moderate dems won't make themselves the sacraficial lambs. If there is government subsidized/funded abortion in the final bill. The bill is DOA when it returns to the House. The only Dems that have alot to lose are the far left Dems.

If I was a gambling man, Id bet that the Democrats lose their majority whether it passes or not.

Stupak doesn't prevent "gov't subsidized/funded abortion", Hyde already does that. What Stupak does is to prevent any insurance available in the exchange from providing any kind of elective abortion coverage. It goes well beyond already present federal limitations and its quite ironic considering the main rally cry of the tea baggers is that healthcare reform will strip away their freedoms ... with that ammendment, people who purchase their own private insurance from one of the plans in the exchange have already had one decision made for them.