Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 16, 2009 21:27:49 GMT -5
on his way home from his tour of all 57 states, Barry O sat down with Charlie Gibson (Democrat House Organ) to announce that failure to enact his Health Care Plan will "bankrupt" the United States.
Two problems:
1. Last I checked we are already bankrupt and simply hoping China does not foreclose; and
2. This seems to represent the politics of fear the Anointed One has so long decried as he lowers the seas and heals the planet.
He really can do better, can't he?
|
|
ScreamingHoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Ted Valentine: Getting it wrong since 1979.
Posts: 451
|
Post by ScreamingHoya on Dec 16, 2009 22:42:05 GMT -5
Clutter. I'm pretty sure Elvado has started 47 other threads on the exact same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2009 0:14:36 GMT -5
Clutter. I'm pretty sure Elvado has started 47 other threads on the exact same thing. Preeeety much. Nothing new to see here. Vado, serious question: if you're that good, that concerned, and that convinced, why aren't you writing op-eds for a newspaper, blog, or at least conservapedia instead of wasting your carpal tunnel on HoyaTalk?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 17, 2009 6:43:32 GMT -5
Who says I don't?
Now serious question for you as I will assume the sincerity of your question. Aren't you troubled by this type of behavior from the President of the United States in the same week that he and his political allies pass a new $1.1 Trillion spending package replete with over 5,000 earmarks? Doesn't he lose a little credibility talking about "bankruptcy" while throwing our money around like Tiger Woods in a brothel?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 17, 2009 7:18:31 GMT -5
Is it a scare tactic if he's right?
By any measure, we spend absurdly more on health care than any other country. By any measure, we're not any healthier for it. We hear so much about the fact that health care is 1/6 of our GDP. What most people fail to mention is that it's less than 10% of GDP in most advanced countries - and they're still healthier than we are.
Single payer health care isn't terribly efficient. But it's twice as efficient as what we have now - that's how bad our current system is.
Face it - despite what the jingoists say, our health care system is NOT the best in the world, unless you're a millionaire.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 17, 2009 9:39:00 GMT -5
Is it a scare tactic if he's right? Except he's not right. The secret is already out on that one. This bill will cost more than not passing a bill, both for the government and for taxpayers. And tell me again all the benefits we're going achieve? George Bush was "right" about the nature of terrorism in the 21st Century -- that it is an existential threat. Didn't stop the entire left and media from accusing him of using scare tactics. And he wasn't wrong, philosophically anyway. We spend absurdly more than other countries on a lot of things. The quality of our health is not directly correlated to our health care system. Oh, and we also keep much better and more strict medical records than most other countries, if not all, so I wouldn't be so rosy about how "healthy" other nations are. There is no single payer in this bill. There never will be. The quality of health care we provide IS, in fact, the best in the world. Our health insurance system has flaws, yes, and can be improved, yes. This bill does not do that. Nor does the House bill. Hell, for all of their ridiculously astronomical costs, these bills don't even provide coverage to everyone without insurance. Some of them perhaps, but not all of them. I would like to see the government put out a bill that actually purports to cut costs. When they prove they can do that, then we can talk about doing something more. In the meantime, not passing a bill -- these bills at least -- is, yes, better than doing so just so we can say "we did something." [/jingoist who is not a millionaire]
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2009 15:16:24 GMT -5
Who says I don't? Now serious question for you as I will assume the sincerity of your question. Aren't you troubled by this type of behavior from the President of the United States in the same week that he and his political allies pass a new $1.1 Trillion spending package replete with over 5,000 earmarks? Doesn't he lose a little credibility talking about "bankruptcy" while throwing our money around like Tiger Woods in a brothel? If you do, I'd love to read your stuff. Seriously. Answer to your question: yeah, actually, I'm troubled for sure. I hardly know anyone who isn't. I'd love it if Obama vetoed the bill and said "bring me back something with zero earmarks." It's not going to happen, but it should, even if only for principle's sake and send to a message. The point I was directing at you was that people who immediately engage in divisive and derisive rhetoric replete with pejoratives don't make themselves or their points very accessible, regardless of how right or wrong they are (same thing with Bush -- he was right about a lot of things but made himself inaccessble by going about it in a real bullying, with-us-or-against-us, no-nuance or recognition of complexity kind of way), which stifles the kind of discussion people on ALL sides need to have to arrive at positive solutions to complex, modern problems. I just don't understand what you seek to accomplish by making a point that's so interwoven with blame and vitriol, it's impossible to argee to the former without tacitly supporting the latter. Is it to lay blame? Is it to prove that those you bash have no credibility? If so, aren't there more civil and productive ways to accomplish that?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 17, 2009 15:27:52 GMT -5
Where's the fun in that? ? Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2009 16:48:08 GMT -5
Where's the fun in that? ? Sheesh. It's Thursday. No fun on B&G until Friday, and then only in the Friday Fun Thread
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 17, 2009 16:55:53 GMT -5
Who says I don't? Now serious question for you as I will assume the sincerity of your question. Aren't you troubled by this type of behavior from the President of the United States in the same week that he and his political allies pass a new $1.1 Trillion spending package replete with over 5,000 earmarks? Doesn't he lose a little credibility talking about "bankruptcy" while throwing our money around like Tiger Woods in a brothel? If you do, I'd love to read your stuff. Seriously. Answer to your question: yeah, actually, I'm troubled for sure. I hardly know anyone who isn't. I'd love it if Obama vetoed the bill and said "bring me back something with zero earmarks." It's not going to happen, but it should, even if only for principle's sake and send to a message. The point I was directing at you was that people who immediately engage in divisive and derisive rhetoric replete with pejoratives don't make themselves or their points very accessible, regardless of how right or wrong they are (same thing with Bush -- he was right about a lot of things but made himself inaccessble by going about it in a real bullying, with-us-or-against-us, no-nuance or recognition of complexity kind of way), which stifles the kind of discussion people on ALL sides need to have to arrive at positive solutions to complex, modern problems. I just don't understand what you seek to accomplish by making a point that's so interwoven with blame and vitriol, it's impossible to argee to the former without tacitly supporting the latter. Is it to lay blame? Is it to prove that those you bash have no credibility? If so, aren't there more civil and productive ways to accomplish that? Of course there are, but this is supposed to be a forum for free and fun expression. I am always amazed at how jacked people get on this forum. I appreciate your thoughtful response and recognition that this emperor may be naked. In Washington, that lack of clothes is damn near an epidemic. Finally, civil discussions and cooperative measures might be a nice solution to send to Senator Ringside who intends to bring a bill for a vote without even letting the Senators (including his own caucus) read it.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Dec 17, 2009 17:09:41 GMT -5
If you do, I'd love to read your stuff. Seriously. Answer to your question: yeah, actually, I'm troubled for sure. I hardly know anyone who isn't. I'd love it if Obama vetoed the bill and said "bring me back something with zero earmarks." It's not going to happen, but it should, even if only for principle's sake and send to a message. The point I was directing at you was that people who immediately engage in divisive and derisive rhetoric replete with pejoratives don't make themselves or their points very accessible, regardless of how right or wrong they are (same thing with Bush -- he was right about a lot of things but made himself inaccessble by going about it in a real bullying, with-us-or-against-us, no-nuance or recognition of complexity kind of way), which stifles the kind of discussion people on ALL sides need to have to arrive at positive solutions to complex, modern problems. I just don't understand what you seek to accomplish by making a point that's so interwoven with blame and vitriol, it's impossible to argee to the former without tacitly supporting the latter. Is it to lay blame? Is it to prove that those you bash have no credibility? If so, aren't there more civil and productive ways to accomplish that? Of course there are, but this is supposed to be a forum for free and fun expression. I am always amazed at how jacked people get on this forum. I appreciate your thoughtful response and recognition that this emperor may be naked. In Washington, that lack of clothes is damn near an epidemic. Finally, civil discussions and cooperative measures might be a nice solution to send to Senator Ringside who intends to bring a bill for a vote without even letting the Senators (including his own caucus) read it. Fair enough; last thing I want to do is imply that expression should be stifled. The freer and funner the better, IMV. Did my post seem "jacked?" Didn't feel that way typing it. I'm genuinely curious about what people who post or converse that way think it accomplishes, or if they're just venting to find some catharsis in the act itself. I find this board entertaining, like all of us here (and a great source of news and opinions from all sides. I go to HoyaTalk before CNN ... ok I don't go to CNN anymore, but you get the point). I'd just love to see this place be a little lighter on the name calling and uber-partisan editorializing about issues that all of us need to sincerely consider and help solve.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 17, 2009 18:37:56 GMT -5
Then you and I stand firmly together on the role of this forum. Look forward to reading more of your input.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 17, 2009 19:16:17 GMT -5
Is it a scare tactic if he's right? Except he's not right. The secret is already out on that one. This bill will cost more than not passing a bill, both for the government and for taxpayers. And tell me again all the benefits we're going achieve? George Bush was "right" about the nature of terrorism in the 21st Century -- that it is an existential threat. Didn't stop the entire left and media from accusing him of using scare tactics. And he wasn't wrong, philosophically anyway. We spend absurdly more than other countries on a lot of things. The quality of our health is not directly correlated to our health care system. Oh, and we also keep much better and more strict medical records than most other countries, if not all, so I wouldn't be so rosy about how "healthy" other nations are. There is no single payer in this bill. There never will be. The quality of health care we provide IS, in fact, the best in the world. Our health insurance system has flaws, yes, and can be improved, yes. This bill does not do that. Nor does the House bill. Hell, for all of their ridiculously astronomical costs, these bills don't even provide coverage to everyone without insurance. Some of them perhaps, but not all of them. I would like to see the government put out a bill that actually purports to cut costs. When they prove they can do that, then we can talk about doing something more. In the meantime, not passing a bill -- these bills at least -- is, yes, better than doing so just so we can say "we did something." [/jingoist who is not a millionaire] ....which is why I'm lukewarm at best about this bill. I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one. Both my parents are physicians. Both have traveled extensively, worked with foreign physicians, and know other systems very well. Both say that we do NOT have the best health care system in the world. Both say that a single payer system is inevitable in the US, simply because nothing else comes remotely close to working. It's the only acceptable solution for an advanced, industrialized country. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a heck of a lot less flawed than our current mess.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 18, 2009 8:58:09 GMT -5
....which is why I'm lukewarm at best about this bill. I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one. Both my parents are physicians. Both have traveled extensively, worked with foreign physicians, and know other systems very well. Both say that we do NOT have the best health care system in the world. Both say that a single payer system is inevitable in the US, simply because nothing else comes remotely close to working. It's the only acceptable solution for an advanced, industrialized country. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a heck of a lot less flawed than our current mess. Look, I'm not an expert, but I'm just not willing to believe that the government running health care is the ONLY acceptable solution. Might it be better than what we have? I don't think so, but maybe. Is it the best system we can come up with if we're going to completely overhaul our 1/6th of our economy? I don't believe that--there HAS to be a better way than creating a massive entitlement, especially considering all of the issues with bureaucracies, how Edited poor our legislature is at saying no to adding onto the entitlement / ensuring that the money for the entitlement stays in the entitlement and how the other single payer systems are starting to show cracks / have trouble with their bills. Also, there's that whole trillion dollar deficit.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Dec 18, 2009 9:30:25 GMT -5
Now, THAT'S the way to kick off a Friday!!
;D
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 18, 2009 11:51:15 GMT -5
Against the backdrop of President Genius' "bankruptcy scare" we are pledging $100B to assist "developing countries" on the global warming front. Who writes this stuff? Are there comedians on staff? Or do they just think the US population has a 30 second attention span?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 11:58:35 GMT -5
Or do they just think the US population has a 30 second attention span? In fact, the US population DOES have a 30 second attention span. Unless it's about Tiger Woods banging skanks - then we'll pay attention for like a week and a half.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Dec 18, 2009 19:11:22 GMT -5
....which is why I'm lukewarm at best about this bill. I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one. Both my parents are physicians. Both have traveled extensively, worked with foreign physicians, and know other systems very well. Both say that we do NOT have the best health care system in the world. Both say that a single payer system is inevitable in the US, simply because nothing else comes remotely close to working. It's the only acceptable solution for an advanced, industrialized country. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's a heck of a lot less flawed than our current mess. Look, I'm not an expert, but I'm just not willing to believe that the government running health care is the ONLY acceptable solution. Might it be better than what we have? I don't think so, but maybe. Is it the best system we can come up with if we're going to completely overhaul our 1/6th of our economy? I don't believe that--there HAS to be a better way than creating a massive entitlement, especially considering all of the issues with bureaucracies, how Edited poor our legislature is at saying no to adding onto the entitlement / ensuring that the money for the entitlement stays in the entitlement and how the other single payer systems are starting to show cracks / have trouble with their bills. Also, there's that whole trillion dollar deficit. If there is a better solution, I'm onboard. But nobody's implemented one yet. Choosing health care systems is sort of choosing the least bad, and right now that's single payer.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 21, 2009 15:58:57 GMT -5
Against the backdrop of President Genius' "bankruptcy scare" we are pledging $100B to assist "developing countries" on the global warming front. Who writes this stuff? Are there comedians on staff? Or do they just think the US population has a 30 second attention span? If Obama pledged to cut foreign aid to 3% of the budget, most Americans would marvel and applaud at the spending reduction and reprioritization on domestic issues. In truth, this would be over a threefold increase. I'm just saying that public perception of the amount of foreign aid we give is untethered from reality.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 21, 2009 18:51:33 GMT -5
Against the backdrop of President Genius' "bankruptcy scare" we are pledging $100B to assist "developing countries" on the global warming front. Who writes this stuff? Are there comedians on staff? Or do they just think the US population has a 30 second attention span? If Obama pledged to cut foreign aid to 3% of the budget, most Americans would marvel and applaud at the spending reduction and reprioritization on domestic issues. In truth, this would be over a threefold increase. I'm just saying that public perception of the amount of foreign aid we give is untethered from reality. That's all well and good. But no matter how you want to spin it, the expenditure of $100,000,000,000.00 to help other nations fight a problem the very existence of which is debatable is an outrage while Barry O cries Bankrupt. How about $100,000,000,000 to help Santa's flying reindeer with their navigation?
|
|