Originally posted by Porfat

What part of 11 trillion (a mind boggling number) in debt do you guys not understand.   The health care plan will cost another 1 trillion dollars.  Or is that another Republican lie.    D

Yes, it is another republican lie. What part of "deficit neutral" can't you grasp? I'm guessing it's the "neutral" part.

The bill would be complete right now if congress was willing to add a trillion dollars onto the national debt.

The thing is, you can afford it, it's whether or not you want it in priority to whatever else you spend your trillions of dollars on every year.

It's not a question of "not being able to" afford it. That is simply a ludicrous argument given the GDP of your nation. Not willing, sure, but not able? Incorrect.

Also that doesn't add a trillion to the national debt as the government will take over all the private health care contributions by taxation.  Quite a lot of the costs is already being met in the economy. It isn't all extra.

Originally posted by Porfat

Oh wait they love their great health care system so much that they get on ricky boats to try to reach our land of substandard health care.   

Cuba socialist policies have ran that country to the ground.   I don't want the same to happen to the US.

Shocker! Yes, people travel to foreign nations to receive health care. At least 500,000 of them are Americans.

Medical Tourism

McKinsey and Company estimates that medical tourism gross revenues were more than $40 billion worldwide in 2004, with projections slated for $100 billion by 2012. The National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, says that an estimated 500,000 Americans traveled abroad for treatment in 2005.

Looks like the major health insurance providers are looking for a way to incorporate medical tourism into their business model:

CIGNA HealthCare is another health plan considering how to approach medical tourism. “In general, we view medical tourism as an evolutionary step in health care consumerism—promoting greater choice, access to affordable health care, and cost transparency,” says Jacquelyn Aube, vice president of product development, CIGNA HealthCare, Bloomfield, Connecticut.

Again, if you like your plan, keep it. Honestly, who doesn't want to take a trip to Thailand for a heart valve replacement?

We have medical tourism too.

When the NHS is too full to treat you, you can go abroad and get treated somewhere else and the NHS will pick up the bill.

Also when my friends come over here on holiday from America (and elsewhere) and fall sick / drunkenly damage themselves, I just take them to see the doctor. Or to the hospital. Great! How easy is that?

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Dekron
You're making it sound as if opponents of ObamaCare are pulling this data out of thin air.
 
I've heard numerous interviews with doctors from Britain stating the exact facts critics are using. Of course the NHS is going to say the opposite.

---

 
And of course you can share the things you've "heard" with the rest of us right?
Or was it a friend of a friend you heard it from?
 
Please... don't let facts be a hindrance to you. You won't bore us.

---

I just did share what I heard.
However, I'm sorry, I don't have program notes or podcasts from the (NUMEROUS) interviews from the talk shows, news shows, etc. But, of course, you would not dare listen or watch because there are dirty conservative and libertarian ideals spewed forth on these shows. They might taint you.
On a related subject, here is a nice quote from OBama:
"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
-- President Barack Obama, attempting to sell government-run health care in Portsmouth, NH.
 

---

Reading your discourse with sepher in the thread about "click thrus" proved that. When asked for proof, all of a sudden its "proprietary", lol. Now when asked for proof of something that anyone with half a memory should be able to find, ... umm.. "I can't find any from the NUMEROUS ones I've heard." We all believe you.. no, we really do.

Your statement above about what you heard NUMEROUS times isn't "propriety", yet you failed to produce any of the "NUMEROUS" interviews you "heard".

---

Originally posted by baff
We have medical tourism too.
When the NHS is too full to treat you, you can go abroad and get treated somewhere else and the NHS will pick up the bill.
Also when my friends come over here on holiday from America (and elsewhere) and fall sick / drunkenly damage themselves, I just take them to see the doctor. Or to the hospital. Great! How easy is that?

---

In any other country if the "average American" with enough money to actually PAY for their own healthcare goes there and gets hurt, (even if its THEIR own stupidity like driving on the wrong side of the road), those countries will come, scrape them up off the highway, put them in hospital, pay for all their surgeries, give them meds and make sure they DON'T leave UNTIL they are well enough. Not until they run out of money.

But yet, that same American will return home, hear about an immigrant or worse yet, someone who's a CITIZEN of the United States getting hurt the same way and getting half of that treatment and thrown out as soon as they can sit up, they QQ about the freeloaders.

Who's really the most civilized nation on the planet is really a matter of perception. A certain segment of Americans are just plain greedy, selfish and hypocritical bastages, plain and simple and most of them can be found yelling in townhalls nightly.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

Reading your discourse with sepher in the thread about "click thrus" proved that. When asked for proof, all of a sudden its "proprietary", lol. Now when asked for proof of something that anyone with half a memory should be able to find, ... umm.. "I can't find any from the NUMEROUS ones I've heard."

I'm not even going to argue the issue regarding Sepher because you have no idea what we were talking about. Proprietary code, yes. Code is closely guarded when it gives a competitive advantage (go ask Microsoft for their code for Windows).

As for the interviews, I. once again, do not have podcasts to post for you to listen to. Go find them - Laura Ingraham, Neal Bortz, and Savage all interviewed individuals.

It's pointless anymore really, since extremes from both sides are too busy arguing their differences and spewing their parties' talking points.  While some independents and moderates that just want to do the right thing, like me, are trying to inject some sanity and speaking about real concerns, and giving some alternative solutions to make it a constructive criticism.  But just like this thread is shown, people that actually do care and want to do the right things can't speak over the extremes that only care about how good their party is doing.  Reason I say that is because the same individuals keep starting threads about republicans this, democrats that.  Never caring about the fact that both parties are responsible for the situation we're in today, both parties are to blame for beaurocracy and wasteful spending.

I really don't know how anybody can sit here and say expanding medicare which is going bankrupt is a good thing, because the new system will also go bankrupt and run into deficit.  I bring up the point about deficit and nation's debt, and I get some graphs about polls?!  What in the world does that have to do with deficit and debt?

Mayo Clinic said it right, the medicare system right now isn't working.  Not only is it not reimbursing doctors enough for their cost, but it's going bankrupt.  If this system isn't fixed, expanding the same exact system to a level the way they want to do it, will make the system much much worse.  Lots of doctors and hospitals won't take medicare patients right now because they don't get paid enough to cover their cost for treating patients.  This is a big issue, and this is an issue on top of a system that's running out of money.  But everybody wants to just overlook that, because they think this is "free healthcare", they think we have unlimited funds.

Then there's the issue of those already sick and on the edge of being dropped by their health insurance.  Once this nationalized healthcare goes through, they'll get dropped and have to be forced to join the public option.  The problem with this is that nationalized healthcare won't authorize expensive treatment and medicine to be made available to them. (as op's article reinforces)   So in order to get these expensive medicine that they depend on, they have to reach out to private insurance.  The problem again, is that 1) if they are lucky to get that on their own, government drops them from nationalized healthcare, or 2) most likely case, they won't be able to get insured by anybody.  Indian reservations around the country right now already have universal healthcare.  The problem is that there's not enough funding to cover all of them, and for those that can't be covered, they are denied by private insurance companies.

If people are still stuck on blaming the republicans, that's fine.  As an independent I'll be the first to say they spent too much when they had control of the congress, and the american people voted them out, rightfully so. This is why conservatives are even abandoning the party to join the middle.  But with Democrats having control of the congress for 3 years now, you people got to stop spinning and start blaming your own party for not having this bill passed by now.  Dems have the majority, more than enough votes to get this through.  If this doesn't get done, blame your own party for a change.  Who knows, you might get a good result if you actually hold your own party responsible.

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by popinjay

 
Reading your discourse with sepher in the thread about "click thrus" proved that. When asked for proof, all of a sudden its "proprietary", lol. Now when asked for proof of something that anyone with half a memory should be able to find, ... umm.. "I can't find any from the NUMEROUS ones I've heard."

---

I'm not even going to argue the issue regarding Sepher because you have no idea what we were talking about. Proprietary code, yes. Code is closely guarded when it gives a competitive advantage (go ask Microsoft for their code for Windows).
As for the interviews, I. once again, do not have podcasts to post for you to listen to. Go find them - Laura Ingraham, Neal Bortz, and Savage all interviewed individuals.

---

He argued what you were talking about was miniscule in danger while you kept saying you made a "propriety" code that allowed one to be a threat potentially. He asked for proof; you provided none.

I'm not looking for a negative that doesn't exist. You try and make a point about something you claim doctors said NUMEROUS times, but you can't recall not one of them.

Sorry, but your wild goose chases are your own. When I claim I "heard a doctor say blah blah blah", you best be sure I'll LINK it to you. That's how adults make legitimate points and prove facts.

Originally posted by popinjay 

 

 

He argued what you were talking about was miniscule in danger while you kept saying you made a "propriety" code that allowed one to be a threat potentially. He asked for proof; you provided none.

 

I'm not looking for a negative that doesn't exist. You try and make a point about something you claim doctors said NUMEROUS times, but you can't recall not one of them.

 

 

Sorry, but your wild goose chases are your own. When I claim I "heard a doctor say blah blah blah", you best be sure I'll LINK it to you. That's how adults make legitimate points and prove facts.

Read up on DCMA if you don't understand the rights to code.

And please, explain how to provide a link if one does not exist because it was on a talk show. Shall I create a page for you and link to it stating what I did above? I don't remember the doctors' name, I don't wish to quote from memory as I may misquote the individuals, but the topics were British doctors speaking of the negatives of the British NHS.

Is that, at all, difficult to believe? Are you that impossible of a person?

And, it matters not if I had the doctors' names and qualifications and the entire text of the interview, you would simply state "They are just holding up strawmen".

That's your answer to everything you disagree with.

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by popinjay 
 
 
He argued what you were talking about was miniscule in danger while you kept saying you made a "propriety" code that allowed one to be a threat potentially. He asked for proof; you provided none.
 

I'm not looking for a negative that doesn't exist. You try and make a point about something you claim doctors said NUMEROUS times, but you can't recall not one of them.
 
 
Sorry, but your wild goose chases are your own. When I claim I "heard a doctor say blah blah blah", you best be sure I'll LINK it to you. That's how adults make legitimate points and prove facts.

---

Read up on DCMA if you don't understand the rights to code.
And please, explain how to provide a link if one does not exist because it was on a talk show. Shall I create a page for you and link to it stating what I did above? I don't remember the doctors' name, I don't wish to quote from memory as I may misquote the individuals, but the topics were British doctors speaking of the negatives of the British NHS.
Is that, at all, difficult to believe? Are you that impossible of a person?
And, it matters not if I had the doctors' names and qualifications and the entire text of the interview, you would simply state "They are just holding up strawmen".
That's your answer to everything you disagree with.

---

You and sepher were talking about a highly technical subject in PLAIN English.

You and sepher were not talking about a highly technical subject in a highly TECHNICAL language. Do you not understand the difference?

Anyone can follow two doctors, lawyers, engineers or athletes and tell which one of the two is pulling stuff out of his ass and which one seems to be able to back his/her claims up.

Stop flattering yourself, and if you don't know the difference and say "go look up this/that", you must treat everyone as idiots. That's all I'll say about a subject you don't think someone can follow. I think he pretty much owned you on that, so I'll let it stand as it did.

My answer to everything I don't agree with isn't "strawman".

It's "provide a friggin link" or some type of friggin proof. I don't consider it acceptable when someone says "Hey, I heard this thing one time" and tries to present that as some type of fact as if it's a given. I know that's a weird quirk, but yeah, I like to see where someone got that idea.

It's kind of like with these "Death Panels". I'd like to SEE where Palin got that idea. What? She doesn't have a link or any proof? Shut the hell up, Sarah. I like to see when a Republican tells me the British healthcare system is shit, they make you pay for tons of stuff they don't mention, and that it breeds anarchy where they get that from. No link? Shut the hell up, FreedomWorks.

I'd like to see proof of why the Canadian government's deals with Merck, Squibb, Novartis or whoever else that makes pharmaceuticals allowing them to buy HUGE quantities of drugs for their citizens cheaply is worse than how Americans get theirs. If it isn't so good, why are tons of Americans skipping the border daily North and South to get those "socialist sponsored" drugs from Mexico and Canada, instead of buying them from the good 'ol USA?

I'd like to see why paying your taxes up front and having your entire family covered from birth to death is a shitty thing for the majority of common ailments most people suffer from. If it's so bad, why do millions of expats return home to their host countries for care, recovery and stipends that allow them to get paid until they return to work, and THEN they return to the U.S. to make money again?

And I'd like to see why we should listen to arguments from Republican groups who's only aim is to do the bidding of insurance and medical lobbies who are their biggest contributors should be taken seriously. Show me you have NO LINK to the insurance or medical industry, then I'll assume your intentions are strictly neutral. If there's a connection monetarily, there's no way your organization is trustworthy when it comes to healthcare.

Yeah, I'm pretty quirky about proof.

Considering the amount of time you spend making each post, I consider it very bad form to ask someone else to provide you links as proof.

You have Google. Use it before you post.

If someone makes a suggestion to you that you would like to cross reference on Google, don't cry for you mum or dad, just do it.

Nothing makes for a more dull discussion than link wars. I post a link, you tell me how it proves nothing. Yawn. You demand another link. I post a link, you tell me it proves nothing. Yawn.

You don't need people to prove things to you with links. If you want to know more, just look it up. I very much doubt the people you are posting with have a whole brocade of evidencial links all saved on their computer to assuage your every doubt in life. If you want to know, just find out.

Really mate it's just bad form. No one expects you take their opinion on faith alone if it conflicts with your own, but to demand Google links as proof?

That's just plum lazy. A cop out. Puting your head in the sand. you have all the Google links on Google yourself. Get on with it. digest what you have read and then come back with your own opinion not someone elses.

Sorry for that little outburst. I think I'll take myself away from the keyboard until my troll tooth stops itching so much!

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Dekron

---

Originally posted by popinjay 
 
 
He argued what you were talking about was miniscule in danger while you kept saying you made a "propriety" code that allowed one to be a threat potentially. He asked for proof; you provided none.
 

 

I'm not looking for a negative that doesn't exist. You try and make a point about something you claim doctors said NUMEROUS times, but you can't recall not one of them.
 
 
Sorry, but your wild goose chases are your own. When I claim I "heard a doctor say blah blah blah", you best be sure I'll LINK it to you. That's how adults make legitimate points and prove facts.

---

Read up on DCMA if you don't understand the rights to code.
And please, explain how to provide a link if one does not exist because it was on a talk show. Shall I create a page for you and link to it stating what I did above? I don't remember the doctors' name, I don't wish to quote from memory as I may misquote the individuals, but the topics were British doctors speaking of the negatives of the British NHS.
Is that, at all, difficult to believe? Are you that impossible of a person?
And, it matters not if I had the doctors' names and qualifications and the entire text of the interview, you would simply state "They are just holding up strawmen".
That's your answer to everything you disagree with.

---

 

You and sepher were talking about a highly technical subject in PLAIN English.

No, he initially asked for CODE. Reread the thread. I told him what it would do, his lack of knowledge led to him not understanding what I was speaking of.

I'd like to see why paying your taxes up front and having your entire family covered from birth to death is a shitty thing for the majority of common ailments most people suffer from.

Because the government is bloated, inefficient and most importantly, it is my life and my choice. Universal coverage means lower quality. Again, you get what you pay for. Rationing is another reason. It's a simple fact that if an additional 50 million people are added to be insured there is going to be waits at doctor's offices. Why? The US is in need of doctor's and nurses. Add on the top that HR3200 includes coverage for illegals (all ILLEGALS, get off the south of the border mentality) who offer nothing to this country but breaking the law.

 

And I'd like to see why we should listen to arguments from Republican groups who's only aim is to do the bidding of insurance and medical lobbies who are their biggest contributors should be taken seriously. Show me you have NO LINK to the insurance or medical industry, then I'll assume your intentions are strictly neutral. If there's a connection monetarily, there's no way your organization is trustworthy when it comes to healthcare.

I'm not a Republican. Again, you have a simple two-party mentality. If you're not a Democrat, you're a Republican. If you don't agree with us, you're a Republican. Blah, blah, blah. Why should any non-Democrat listen to Democrat groups? They all want big government and are the party of death - the country has 40 million less bodies because of the Democrat party.

 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty quirky about proof.

I'm pretty quirky about it as well. I'm pretty quirky about google links as well, as baff said above. Plus, you know, you still have failed to establish a reason why a fair tax is unfair. You keep spewing the same rhetoric everyone else does "It creates a class gap". Why is THAT unfair? If they want more money, they need to work for it - simple as that. Everyone is not equal, everyone has equal opportuniy. Those who are poorest have the greatest opportunity to go to college because of federal financial aid. It is their laziness that keeps them from doing so and their desire to reamin dependent upon the government and not take personal responsibility.

Originally posted by baff

Considering the amount of time you spend making each post, I consider it very bad form to ask someone else to provide you links as proof.

You have Google. Use it before you post.

 

If someone makes a suggestion to you that you would like to cross reference on Google, don't cry for you mum or dad, just do it.

Nothing makes for a more dull discussion than link wars. I post a link, you tell me how it proves nothing. Yawn. You demand another link. I post a link, you tell me it proves nothing. Yawn.

 

You don't need people to prove things to you with links. If you want to know more, just look it up. I very much doubt the people you are posting with have a whole brocade of evidencial links all saved on their computer to assuage your every doubt in life. If you want to know, just find out.

 

Really mate it's just bad form. No one expects you take their opinion on faith alone if it conflicts with your own, but to demand Google links as proof?

That's just plum lazy. A cop out. Puting your head in the sand. you have all the Google links on Google yourself. Get on with it. digest what you have read and then come back with your own opinion not someone elses.

 

Sorry for that little outburst. I think I'll take myself away from the keyboard until my troll tooth stops itching so much!

Actually, no.  Whoever makes the assertion is the one that must provide the evidence to back up said assertion.  If no evidence backs up said assertion, then it is just an opinion rather than fact.  It's called burden of proof.  Here, I'll help you with the definition.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/burden+of+proof

"the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth."

It may have originated within the legal system, however it applies to everyday statements as well.  If you make an assertion of fact, then you must back up said assertion with evidence or said "fact" becomes discredible.  Thus, whoever makes the assertion has the burden to back it up.

And, to counter your statement about being "lazy" and "A cop out." for the other party to not do their homework... I find it lazy and a cop out for the Asserting party to not provide actual evidence when they make their assertion.

---

Originally posted by baff
Considering the amount of time you spend making each post, I consider it very bad form to ask someone else to provide you links as proof.
You have Google. Use it before you post.
 
If someone makes a suggestion to you that you would like to cross reference on Google, don't cry for you mum or dad, just do it.
Nothing makes for a more dull discussion than link wars. I post a link, you tell me how it proves nothing. Yawn. You demand another link. I post a link, you tell me it proves nothing. Yawn.
 
You don't need people to prove things to you with links. If you want to know more, just look it up. I very much doubt the people you are posting with have a whole brocade of evidencial links all saved on their computer to assuage your every doubt in life. If you want to know, just find out.
 
Really mate it's just bad form. No one expects you take their opinion on faith alone if it conflicts with your own, but to demand Google links as proof?
That's just plum lazy. A cop out. Puting your head in the sand. you have all the Google links on Google yourself. Get on with it. digest what you have read and then come back with your own opinion not someone elses.
 
Sorry for that little outburst. I think I'll take myself away from the keyboard until my troll tooth stops itching so much!

---

If you are referring to me asking for proof as "bad form", if I make a claim you are free to ask for proof if you think its strange.

I'm not sure what's bad form about that.

If someone is arguing over and over and over about a point, don't you think at some point one would get tired and say "post some proof" or the other would say "here's a link; go read it for yourself"? That's usually the world I live in. I don't live in the one where someone says "A is true, now go find proof that backs up MY point, because I said its out there. You just have to look for it long enough." That's pretty strange to assume he's right when you don't believe the fact in the first place. It's like saying "I think Martians are real. There is plenty of proof that proves it. Now, go look it up." Huh?

These forums are famous for having "experts" in this or experience with that who aren't even sure where they heard something. It could have been heard in a dream or on a comedy show, but they are SURE its real.

I have no problems with people's opinions at all, but when people's opinions are pushed as living fact, that's a problem.

If you wish to argue incessantly over a point that could be EASILY proved by providing a link or a reference instead, have at it. If someone presents me with a logical, factual, verifiable link of government stats on something; how can you argue that? You'd be silly if you did. So the Yawns... I'd pretty much be done with them after that. Of course we are assuming the two people both are rational adults WILLING to listen to the other side. You assume above with your yawns that one isn't.

I don't think you are trolling, I just think you aren't as demanding as I am of others presenting an opposite opinion and while that's fine, I'm not sure your standard of causualness about a vibrant topic should be considered what everyone should do.

If all the proof you seek is a Google link, then since you have the internet, you don't need it provided for you.

Simples.

There is no onus for random strangers on the internet to provide you factual "proof" of their opinions.

It takes less time to look something up than it does to ask for some one to look it up for you.

It takes a lot less time to look something up than it does to ask someoone to look it up for you and then wait for them to reply to you. (And then look it all up anyway).

It's bad form because everyone knows the trap mate.

They post an evidencial link and you say "that's not proof" try again.

Which you will say whatever they post.

And instead of anyone learning what you think, or benefitting from your personal experiences you will just be posting someones opinion you found on Google, which quite frankly they don't really need you for since they have Google too.

The onus is not on someone you are discussing things with to prove what they say is true. The onus is on you to find out about what you are talking about before you open your mouth so that you might offer your peer the most informed opinion you can give in the hope that he does the same to you.

No one needs to prove anything to anyone. If you want Google evidence, use Google. Simples.

Some bloke on the internet posting links isn't going to "prove" anything to anyone who is not open minded enough to find out for themselves anyway.

It's a trap mate and makes for very poor discussion.

Originally posted by popinjay

If you wish to argue incessantly over a point that could be EASILY proved by providing a link or a reference instead, have at it.

But you insist on a link when none exists. I gave you the reference - particular radio shows, but that wasn't good enough for you because it wasn't located in your holy book Wikipedia.

The thing is, there are literally dozens of things wrong with Obama's health care package, but everything the Republicans choose to talk about is wrong.  If they would just take a minute and discuss valid issues, not figments of their imagination, we could have a serious discussion about it.

Originally posted by clwoods

The thing is, there are literally dozens of things wrong with Obama's health care package, but everything the Republicans choose to talk about is wrong.  If they would just take a minute and discuss valid issues, not figments of their imagination, we could have a serious discussion about it.

Blaming the republicans is easy, I've done that plenty myself.  So please tell us what those dozens of things wrong are, so I know what "valid issues" are and what "serious discussion" means.

I'm an independent and I see republicans raising some valid issues, some not so valid issues, and some of them are simply nuts.  But on the flip side, I also see Dems raising valid issues regarding these debates, but they equally have been nuts about this when they started calling people names, and even go as far as bringing up the race issue.

I guess the biggest lie of all is Obama saying he won't raise taxes, and got elected based on the promise of giving 95% Americans a tax cut and providing universal healthcare coverage.  There's no economist out there, CBO, or even Democrats that will come out and make such claims right now.

So I would love to see what valid issues to you are.