Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:11 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror" 
Author Message
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
James Berardinelli wrote:
slksc wrote:
I disagree with JB completely on this point.

To say that both parties are the same because neither one has lowered taxes is a very narrow view of the political process. The two parties differ greatly on many critical issues.


I don't believe I said that the parties are the same because neither has lowered taxes. I merely used my property tax as an indicator that members of neither party keep their word. Governors in this state have been running on a "lower the property tax" platform for more than 20 years, and no one has done it yet. Remains to be seen if the current governor, who at least seems to be making an effort, will succeed.

The issue isn't lowering taxes or raising taxes - it's putting into practice the pre-election promises. Neither party does that. As Bushteaser wrote elsewhere in this thread, there are vast philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans - on paper. In practice, especially as they impact the "average" individual, not so much.



Two major differences:
Democrats support a push toward socialized medicine, which will invariably result in, amongst many other things, significantly higher taxes. Republicans don't.
Democrats support cap and trade, which would be a fairly substantial energy tax. Republicans don't.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:35 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
James Berardinelli wrote:
I have gotten a lot of complaints lately that recent ReelThoughts have merely been rehashes of previous ones, so I decided to write something completely off-center. I started writing something about Halloween but got bored, so I switched the basic thesis.

I was also trying something else that I'll talk about at a later time.


I don't know what you were trying, but kudos are in order for this Reelthoughts.

I too had grown a bit weary with the recent Reelthoughts topics and regardless of the quality of this one or the opinions espoused within I'm glad to have read something a bit different. It also seemed to work. Several people registered for the forums just to post comments so all-in-all I think this Reelthoughts was a success. Good job, JB!


Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:31 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Yes, politics > Baseball 7 days a week.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:27 pm
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
Yes, politics > Baseball 7 days a week.

......What?


Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:22 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, James. I share a lot of your sentiments about selecting a candidate (particularly the fact that elected officials truly serve not their constituents but their moneyed backers), however, I'm curious if your moratorium extends to voting on ballot initiatives.

Though a passed referendum/proposition sometimes has effects that voters didn't intend, its certainly less of a gamble than voting for a candidate. For instance, if you support gay marriage and you were a California voter in 2008, you had the ability to vote no on Prop. 8. Contrast this with simply voting for a pro-gay marriage candidate who may or may not actually do anything about the issue once elected, and I hope you'll see why I'm a fan of voting on ballot initiatives.


Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:28 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Pedro wrote:
firefly wrote:
Yes, politics > Baseball 7 days a week.

......What?

I hate baseball. Hate hate hate it.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:42 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:21 pm
Posts: 29
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
I agree. Both parties have spent us to the point of no return. The Republicans started the ball by crushing the USSR by bankrupting them with our own debt spending. Then both parties spent of us (expect for the 1994-2000 conservative congress which actually had spending=revenue) to this point. That is why the TEA Party exists, the non-rich standing up against the wall st and congress/fed reserve games to make the rich (and unions) richer. If you want to give up, that is fine just don't complain if you don't at least vote. Common people have stood up for individual rights and got a lot of good people elected. The people are going to lean on the newbies hard for 2 years. So, for the next 2 years try this. Find a local TEA Party worth supporting with your time and push to get more conservative/libertarians elected since historically they are the only ones who save this country from the elite.


Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:09 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
Two major differences:
Democrats support a push toward socialized medicine, which will invariably result in, amongst many other things, significantly higher taxes. Republicans don't.
Democrats support cap and trade, which would be a fairly substantial energy tax. Republicans don't.


Don't worry-in 50 years we won't have any taxes at all. Of course we won't have our present coastlines either.


Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:21 am
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
Democrats support a push toward socialized medicine, which will invariably result in, amongst many other things, significantly higher taxes. Republicans don't.

The alternative is inadequate, nonexistent, or intentionally overpriced health insurance for anyone not employed by a large employee-friendly company or independently wealthy. Without insurance, healthcare costs for any serious injury or illness are crippling. To a person paying out of pocket, the tab for a broken arm can crest $30K. For any sort of heart surgery, the bill begins in the hundreds of thousands and goes up from there.

Here's how that plays out in real life:

Scenario A: You're poor and don't carry insurance. You have a heart attack and find yourself in the ER. From there, you'll be shipped to one of a handful of hospitals willing to accept the uninsured. If you die on the way, tough shit. If you do get there, you'll be treated eventually. Then you'll be presented with a bill for $250K. Since you have no assets and no insurance, you simply walk out and the hospital eats the bill, and the quality of care for everyone else drops as the hospital cuts back elsewhere.

Winner: You.

Loser: The hospital and everyone near it.

Scenario B: You've worked in a factory job your entire life. You've conscientious, gracious, and you've never missed a day. You're the paradigm of Real America that Republicans like to pander to. Through great effort and perseverence, you've managed to accumulate a small retirement egg of $20K and a humble $100K home. Then you're diagnosed with cancer. Your insurance is capped or does not cover your condition. The cost for treatment ends up at $200K. Insurance pays half.

Where does the rest come from? Your assets. Bank accounts. Home equity. Wage garnishments. All of it. Your entire nest egg might cover the first day in the hospital. If you don't pay, your name is forwarded to a collection agency (or an assignee of the agency) that will hound you until the day you die, or you'll be sued in court. The only way out is to fight for a reasonable repayment plan, fight for asset exemptions, or go bankrupt.

Winner: The insurance company, and anyone who either limited or didn't provide you with coverage.

Loser: You, and probably the hospital.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/heal ... =PM:HEALTH

"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point."

SIXTY-TWO PERCENT. This is why we so desperately need insurance reform, and why the much-maligned 'public option' was so pivotal. The industry is an oligarchy that does not compete within its ranks. Their customers are the hospitals, not the insured.

Within this system, if you have assets less than the cost of your bills, you're screwed. If you're rich, it doesn't matter. If you're poor, you're good to go. And if you're healthy, the costs don't disappear just because you're not paying taxes. They're just shifted elsewhere, often in a massively inefficient way that everyone must eventually reconcile.

This is what the Republicans want to preserve and the Democrats have tried so desperately to fix for over twenty years. The point of insurance is to distribute risk. Without that mechanism, you and most families you know are probably one serious illness away from personal ruin.


Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:58 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Alexdi wrote:
firefly wrote:
Democrats support a push toward socialized medicine, which will invariably result in, amongst many other things, significantly higher taxes. Republicans don't.

The alternative is inadequate, nonexistent, or intentionally overpriced health insurance for anyone not employed by a large employee-friendly company or independently wealthy. Without insurance, healthcare costs for any serious injury or illness are crippling. To a person paying out of pocket, the tab for a broken arm can crest $30K. For any sort of heart surgery, the bill begins in the hundreds of thousands and goes up from there.

Here's how that plays out in real life:

Scenario A: You're poor and don't carry insurance. You have a heart attack and find yourself in the ER. From there, you'll be shipped to one of a handful of hospitals willing to accept the uninsured. If you die on the way, tough shit. If you do get there, you'll be treated eventually. Then you'll be presented with a bill for $250K. Since you have no assets and no insurance, you simply walk out and the hospital eats the bill, and the quality of care for everyone else drops as the hospital cuts back elsewhere.

Winner: You.

Loser: The hospital and everyone near it.

Scenario B: You've worked in a factory job your entire life. You've conscientious, gracious, and you've never missed a day. You're the paradigm of Real America that Republicans like to pander to. Through great effort and perseverence, you've managed to accumulate a small retirement egg of $20K and a humble $100K home. Then you're diagnosed with cancer. Your insurance is capped or does not cover your condition. The cost for treatment ends up at $200K. Insurance pays half.

Where does the rest come from? Your assets. Bank accounts. Home equity. Wage garnishments. All of it. Your entire nest egg might cover the first day in the hospital. If you don't pay, your name is forwarded to a collection agency (or an assignee of the agency) that will hound you until the day you die, or you'll be sued in court. The only way out is to fight for a reasonable repayment plan, fight for asset exemptions, or go bankrupt.

Winner: The insurance company, and anyone who either limited or didn't provide you with coverage.

Loser: You, and probably the hospital.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/heal ... =PM:HEALTH

"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point."

SIXTY-TWO PERCENT. This is why we so desperately need insurance reform, and why the much-maligned 'public option' was so pivotal. The industry is an oligarchy that does not compete within its ranks. Their customers are the hospitals, not the insured.

Within this system, if you have assets less than the cost of your bills, you're screwed. If you're rich, it doesn't matter. If you're poor, you're good to go. And if you're healthy, the costs don't disappear just because you're not paying taxes. They're just shifted elsewhere, often in a massively inefficient way that everyone must eventually reconcile.

This is what the Republicans want to preserve and the Democrats have tried so desperately to fix for over twenty years. The point of insurance is to distribute risk. Without that mechanism, you and most families you know are probably one serious illness away from personal ruin.


Here's the problem that you have with this picture: the American people are overwhelmingly satisfied with the pre-Obama system--the number who say they are satisfied with what they currently have is somewhere between 80 and 90%. You're calling for a dramatic overhaul because a tiny fraction of the country doesn't like it?

Furthermore, the number of people who actually can not afford health insurance is extremely low. Right now I don't have health insurance, and I also don't have much $$. But I have enough money that I'd be able to afford a health care plan if I wanted to buy it. I just don't want to buy it. I'm a healthy person; I'm not overweight, I work out daily and I eat healthy foods. The likelihood of my getting something serious is extremely low. So I'm playing the odds. Many Americans who don't have health insurance do the same. The actual number of people who can not afford health care insurance is a fraction of the 10-12 million who can't afford it.

So if it's really about the people who can't afford health insurance, why not propose and support something that gets them health insurance? That would be extremely easy and it would cost a fraction of what Obamacare will cost. It would've gained a bit of GOP support, too.

But socializing medicine isn't about helping those who don't have health care. It's about control. It's about a philosophy that says the government knows better than the private citizen, and that the government should decide who gets what. It's the same philosophy that just led San Francisco to ban Happy Meals. And it's an idea that is fundamentally opposed to the traditional American ideal of individualism and liberty. If the government forces me to purchase health care, and then forces me into a system that they control and tells me what I can and can not get, and forces all doctors to essentially be paid servants of the state, then we are not a free society.

Serenity made me more of a libertarian.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:06 am
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
But socializing medicine isn't about helping those who don't have health care. It's about control. It's about a philosophy that says the government knows better than the private citizen, and that the government should decide who gets what. It's the same philosophy that just led San Francisco to ban Happy Meals. And it's an idea that is fundamentally opposed to the traditional American ideal of individualism and liberty. If the government forces me to purchase health care, and then forces me into a system that they control and tells me what I can and can not get, and forces all doctors to essentially be paid servants of the state, then we are not a free society.

Serenity made me more of a libertarian.


Firstly, the notion that socialized medical care is about "controlling the people" is pretty ridiculous. Medicine is a fairly universal thing, and it shouldn't be grouped in with other things that would adhere to your totalitarian theory (i.e. brainwashing in education, prohibition of marijuana, control/banning of foods). Comparing it to the philosophy that led to banned happy meals is a comparison that holds no flame to the fire; socialized medicine would not effect how the doctors treat the patients. You make it seem like Obama is going to change the way doctors treat the patients medically, which in my opinion should be more important that how it is paid for. Moreover, I'm not sure what measure of control the government would have over you if you didn't have to worry about not having (privatized) insurance for an emergency hospital visit. Furthermore, how is the current system NOT an example of the government trying to control the people? You think there aren't any politicians who accepted campaign donations from insurance companies in exchange for policies in their favor? How do you think this failed system got into place? Who are the beneficiaries of people going bankrupt due to having to pay exorbitant medical bills?

What I highlighted in your quote is simply a regurgitation of GOP rhetoric. Contrary to popular belief, the Obama health-care plan is not going to destroy the private sector. In terms of libertarianism, you seem a lot more like Glenn Beck than Ron Paul...

EDIT: If i'm not mistaken (too lazy to Google it), Ron Paul was opposed to "Obamacare," but also in favor of a massive reform of the insurance system.


Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:11 pm
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
It is one thing to be opposed to the actual health legislation that was introduced. (What wasn't perfect to begin with was made infinitely worse by the compromises, but I digress.) It is quite another to be opposed to universal health care as an idea. To say that America cannot or should not have a safety net in place for everybody is absurd.


Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:51 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Timmy Shoes wrote:

Firstly, the notion that socialized medical care is about "controlling the people" is pretty ridiculous. Medicine is a fairly universal thing, and it shouldn't be grouped in with other things that would adhere to your totalitarian theory (i.e. brainwashing in education, prohibition of marijuana, control/banning of foods). Comparing it to the philosophy that led to banned happy meals is a comparison that holds no flame to the fire; socialized medicine would not effect how the doctors treat the patients.


It has everywhere it's applied. That's why cancer survival rates in America have remained substantially higher than in Britain and every other country with socialized medicine. Rationing of care is inevitable, because central planning, unlike the market, is inefficient. So, people are sent to die in hospice care instead of given life-saving operations. Doctors are told by government bureaucrats what procedures to approve and at what rates. It's nightmarish, really.


Quote:
You make it seem like Obama is going to change the way doctors treat the patients medically, which in my opinion should be more important that how it is paid for. Moreover, I'm not sure what measure of control the government would have over you if you didn't have to worry about not having (privatized) insurance for an emergency hospital visit.


The government is arguing that the commerce clause gives them permission to force people to by health insurance because, as their logic goes, it permits the government to regulate peoples' economic decisions. Well, every decision is an economic one. Down to the decision to sleep instead of going out and working more, every decision we make has an economic aspect. So, it is an absolute gateway into authoritarianism, because it gives the government grounds to regulate every decision we make.

Quote:
Furthermore, how is the current system NOT an example of the government trying to control the people? You think there aren't any politicians who accepted campaign donations from insurance companies in exchange for policies in their favor? How do you think this failed system got into place? Who are the beneficiaries of people going bankrupt due to having to pay exorbitant medical bills?


The solution that would be less government, instead of more, wouldn't it? Selective privileges from high-ranking members of Congress, restrictions that prevent interstate competition, etc. all are detriments to our current system. But I absolutely believe that free market solutions can work.

Quote:
What I highlighted in your quote is simply a regurgitation of GOP rhetoric. Contrary to popular belief, the Obama health-care plan is not going to destroy the private sector. In terms of libertarianism, you seem a lot more like Glenn Beck than Ron Paul...


I'm actually not a fan of either :P I'm much closer to the late William F Buckley, and somewhat to Milton Friedman and FA Hayek. Out of contemporary politicians, I'm probably most similar to Jeff Flake, maybe Mitch Daniels.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
As a foreigner I can observe two absolute facts:

Your system is corrupt
And it's broken

Rob


Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
the American people are overwhelmingly satisfied with the pre-Obama system

The pre-Obama system bankrupts a million people each year. Are they satisfied?

Quote:
Furthermore, the number of people who actually can not afford health insurance is extremely low.

Hogwash. Let's not even talk about what constitutes 'affordable' in the private insurance industry. Let's talk instead about the huge swaths of this country that can't get insurance at any price, my relatives among them. For a family of two adults and three teenage children, they pay $15K a year for a plan with a $2000 deductible. There is zero competition. If they leave the plan, no one else will accept them because one adult has a preexisting GI condition diagnosed six years ago that hasn't manifested in four.

Quote:
I have enough money that I'd be able to afford a health care plan if I wanted to buy it. I just don't want to buy it. I'm a healthy person; I'm not overweight, I work out daily and I eat healthy foods. The likelihood of my getting something serious is extremely low. So I'm playing the odds.

You're a leech. If you thought for a second that a hospital would let you die for lack of insurance, you'd have it. Instead, when you're blindsiding by a truck, you'll get premium care and won't pay a dime. Society picks up the ticket. I pick up the ticket. And I'd do it gladly if you were part of a government insurance plan.

Quote:
So if it's really about the people who can't afford health insurance, why not propose and support something that gets them health insurance? That would be extremely easy and it would cost a fraction of what Obamacare will cost.

That was the point of the public option. Even the emasculated version of Obamacare actually passed was such a leap forward. Scroll down to the list of provisions. Which would you prefer not to have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act

Quote:
And it's an idea that is fundamentally opposed to the traditional American ideal of individualism and liberty.

My Glenn Beck meter is screaming. Emotional appeals to 'tradition' and 'liberty' have no place in legitimate argument. Be specific about what you don't like.

Here's some background reading before you respond.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312 ... imony.html


Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:23 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Quote:
To say that America cannot or should not have a safety net in place for everybody is absurd.


Of course we shouldn't have a safety net for everyone. Charity does a great job of this, by the way, but I don't see it as the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone lives happily ever after.

Alexdi wrote:
The pre-Obama system bankrupts a million people each year. Are they satisfied?


There are approx. 300 million Americans in the country. I find it very hard to believe that medical bills bankrupt .3% each year.

Are you against people going bankrupt because their business goes under, or they lose their job? Because their house ends up being worth substantially less than what they paid for it? It seems like you're making an argument against bankruptcy. But that's part of a free nation--people are free to rise and fall. Some people will go bankrupt. Sometimes it will be for things that aren't really within their control. If you don't want that, then what you advocate for is Communism.

Quote:
Hogwash. Let's not even talk about what constitutes 'affordable' in the private insurance industry. Let's talk instead about the huge swaths of this country that can't get insurance at any price, my relatives among them. For a family of two adults and three teenage children, they pay $15K a year for a plan with a $2000 deductible. There is zero competition. If they leave the plan, no one else will accept them because one adult has a preexisting GI condition diagnosed six years ago that hasn't manifested in four.


You say they can't afford it but then it appears tat they can. I'm not against the idea of ensuring that all children can get health insurance. The problem is that this is an entirely different idea than what Obamacare is, and what nationalized health care represents.


Quote:
You're a leech. If you thought for a second that a hospital would let you die for lack of insurance, you'd have it. Instead, when you're blindsiding by a truck, you'll get premium care and won't pay a dime. Society picks up the ticket. I pick up the ticket. And I'd do it gladly if you were part of a government insurance plan.


The likelihood of that happening is extraordinarily low. Do you have insurance for every type of extraordinarily unlikely circumstance? If not, then you are by your own definition a leech.

Quote:
That was the point of the public option. Even the emasculated version of Obamacare actually passed was such a leap forward. Scroll down to the list of provisions. Which would you prefer not to have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act


I prefer not to have the bill at all. As in every single part of it. A complete repeal and starting over from scratch.

Let's take the way Obamacare treats preexisting conditions. All that does is substantially increase premiums for everyone--on average somewhere between $2000 and $3000. It also is designed to slowly bankrupt health insurance providers to usher in the nationalized health care plan.


Quote:
My Glenn Beck meter is screaming. Emotional appeals to 'tradition' and 'liberty' have no place in legitimate argument. Be specific about what you don't like.


You're dismissing the notions of tradition and liberty when both are what has kept America free from tyranny for its entire history. Even in the depths of economic depression, when Europe was gripped by Communist and Fascist movements, America remained free. Neither Communism nor Socialism ever gained so much as a toehold in American politics. That is because, yes, of our traditions. Because we, unlike Europe, have no history of feudalism and no resulting expectation that the government will be there to provide everything for us. Because we have a frontier culture that emphasized individualism and self determination--this is covered very thoroughly in, amongst other works, Democracy in America.

Quote:
Here's some background reading before you respond.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312 ... imony.html


Yuck, Bill Moyers. Are you aware that he spent his time in Washington trying to hunt down gays in the Johnson administration? (http://www.slate.com/id/2211601/). He's a smug creep.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:44 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 9
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
firefly wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that medical bills bankrupt .3% each year.

Do you read the links I post? It's a fact, not a supposition.

Quote:
Some people will go bankrupt. Sometimes it will be for things that aren't really within their control. If you don't want that, then what you advocate for is Communism.

It's communism, is it? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
You say they can't afford it but then it appears tat they can.

Read the paragraph again.

Quote:
The likelihood of that happening is extraordinarily low.

For any particular person, that's true. For people as a group, it isn't. Government policy must account for the group. Uninsured people in your situation who encounter health problems put a serious drain on the system.

Quote:
I prefer not to have the bill at all.

That's because you didn't read it or attempt to think for yourself.

Quote:
You're dismissing the notions of tradition and liberty...

You're not arguing the issue.

Quote:
Yuck, Bill Moyers.

Do you have any response to his testimony?


Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:07 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
You seemed to have ignored most of my substantive points...

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:12 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:34 pm
Posts: 11
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Alexdi--Just so you don't think you wasted your night arguing with someone who cannot be reasoned with, I thought I would just let you know that I read all of your comments, and I am incredibly impressed with how compelling your arguments were. You always know that you bested someone when they have nothing else to do but dispute facts (like that one million Americans are forced into bankruptcy every year because of medical bills), and, even worse, when they resort to calling you a "communist." It's almost amusing how people on the far-right who have been brainwashed by Glenn Beck like to throw out the word "communism" even though they have no idea what it really means. It's too bad they cannot go back to high school and relearn the word's definition.

Just a quick thought: What is also so absurd about the Republican's position on health care reform is that they claim they want to keep the popular provisions of the law--like no denial based on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps on coverage, and allowing young people to stay on their parent's plans until they are 26 years old. At the same time they want to keep all of these popular provisions, however, they also want to simultaneously eliminate the individual mandate and the government subsidies for those who lack insurance, which, taken together, are supposed to extend coverage to 32 million Americans.

This Republican position fails to realize that it is going to cost an enormous amount of money for the insurance companies to implement all of the popular provisions. The insurance companies need the 32 million Americans who are supposed to be new customers for them to help defray the costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions, people with unlimited lifetime caps, and extending coverage to young people under 26. Otherwise, without the new customers, you are going to practically bankrupt the insurance companies. This is why all the parts of the health care reform law need to be implemented together in order for it to work.


Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:18 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: October 31, 2010: "The True Day of Horror"
Jonathon9 wrote:
Alexdi--Just so you don't think you wasted your night arguing with someone who cannot be reasoned with, I thought I would just let you know that I read all of your comments, and I am incredibly impressed with how compelling your arguments were. You always know that you bested someone when they have nothing else to do but dispute facts (like that one million Americans are forced into bankruptcy every year because of medical bills), and, even worse, when they resort to calling you a "communist." It's almost amusing how people on the far-right who have been brainwashed by Glenn Beck like to throw out the word "communism" even though they have no idea what it really means. It's too bad they cannot go back to high school and relearn the word's definition.

Just a quick thought: What is also so absurd about the Republican's position on health care reform is that they claim they want to keep the popular provisions of the law--like no denial based on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps on coverage, and allowing young people to stay on their parent's plans until they are 26 years old. At the same time they want to keep all of these popular provisions, however, they also want to simultaneously eliminate the individual mandate and the government subsidies for those who lack insurance, which, taken together, are supposed to extend coverage to 32 million Americans.

This Republican position fails to realize that it is going to cost an enormous amount of money for the insurance companies to implement all of the popular provisions. The insurance companies need the 32 million Americans who are supposed to be new customers for them to help defray the costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions, people with unlimited lifetime caps, and extending coverage to young people under 26. Otherwise, without the new customers, you are going to practically bankrupt the insurance companies. This is why all the parts of the health care reform law need to be implemented together in order for it to work.


I wonder if Jonathan=Alexdi...

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:52 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr