Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example

Originally Posted by me

[our government has]

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by [BleedBurgundy's] numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.

And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I just wanted to point out that your defeatist attitude is an obstacle to progress. It's just a coincidence that you are against Universal Healthcare.

Progress, in this case, does not mean Universal Healthcare. It means refining ideas until you get the best balance (whatever the topic). Every time you defeat an idea, and offer NO ALTERNATIVE, you stop the refinement process -- thereby stopping progress. So, people want to discuss possibilities, and you prohibit that. I understand you are worried about Universal Healthcare (for good reasons, no doubt), but you have to offer alternatives otherwise you reduce the value of the discussion.

Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example


And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.

So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.

[MTK]

C'mon let's stick with the topic people. Now who wants my recipe for grilled tuna?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.

For every ten politically themed threads, about 9 are designed only to bash. This isn't anything new here.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...

Yeah, I guess I did... gets back to my defensive nature...

Onward and Upward, Football shall soon return!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

C'mon let's stick with the topic people. Now who wants my recipe for grilled tuna?

Here you go:

YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Preview: Wendell...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.

Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.

FD, did you finally get spell check?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by saden1

Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.

I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

First off one of the reasons that health ins is so expensive is that the goverment mandates that ins co provide certain coverages in all policies. The best one of these mandates is for Viagra. Thats right we pay for old men to get it up. They also force me to buy drug and alcohol addiction and treatment and this list goes on and on. Why not let me pick the package that fits my needs like in other ins.?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.

What the heck wrong with making a profit? Are you working for free?