| 50 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/13/09 5:50:03 PM#21
Originally posted by Fishermage
ACTUALLY, it is. Insurance companies allowing someone to die because they managed to find a small loophole in the fine print of the contract that allows them not to pay for their medical care is controlling a life.
And stop acting like the government is some all mighty being that we have no control of. The government is made up of citizens, voted in by citizens, and at the mercy of citizens. No matter how many tinfoil hats you put on. Maybe you should be mad at the voter majority instead of the government.
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
Freedom to me is someone not having to worry about healthcare, or whether or not you will be able to eat tonight. Freedom is living with the basics covered.
Don't claim to support freedom unless you really support it. IE No government, no military protection, nothing. Unless you support that than you are nothing but a kettle calling the pot black.
In other words, you believe forced servitude is a right. I support freedom, and to that end, governments have been created. To me, the purpose of government is to preserve and protect freedom -- beyond that it has lost it's way. You believe governments are designed toi make everyone slaves. VERY different way of viewing things. Again you show you have much more reading to do.
Jesus christ. Do you even read your posts. They come off so snide and so arrogant it would put Donald Trump to shame.
Ending your posts with "Again you show you have much reading to do." and telling people what they believe makes you sound like a massive massive douche. You are projecting that you have read enough to know more than myself. If you toned down the arrogance and the "my shit smells good" attitude you have, some of us might actually entertain your ideas. But continuing to act like you know-it-all and that other people are below you will get you nowhere.
How many people have called you arrogant Fishermage? I know quite a few people here have, yet you blow them off and continue posting crap.
You are an asshole. Plain and simple, and I'm sick of it. I will continue debating with people like smokemonsc. At least he doesn't act like his word is law and all others just simply haven't discovered the truth yet.
|
|
|
10/13/09 6:21:41 PM#22
Cloward-Piven strategy is almost complete. |
|
|
10/13/09 7:49:16 PM#23
I think the problem everyone has with the bill is that it doesn't institute healthcare as a right. Its forcing people to buy a product. Its not like they are addressing cost. They aren't addressing universal care. They aren't addressing pharmecuticals. They aren't addressing acceptance on Insurance. They are just forcing everyone to buy insurance through fines and imprisonment. Its a being alive tax. |
|
|
10/13/09 7:59:03 PM#24
Originally posted by Sabiancym
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
Freedom to me is someone not having to worry about healthcare, or whether or not you will be able to eat tonight. Freedom is living with the basics covered.
Don't claim to support freedom unless you really support it. IE No government, no military protection, nothing. Unless you support that than you are nothing but a kettle calling the pot black.
In other words, you believe forced servitude is a right. I support freedom, and to that end, governments have been created. To me, the purpose of government is to preserve and protect freedom -- beyond that it has lost it's way. You believe governments are designed toi make everyone slaves. VERY different way of viewing things. Again you show you have much more reading to do.
Jesus christ. Do you even read your posts. They come off so snide and so arrogant it would put Donald Trump to shame.
Ending your posts with "Again you show you have much reading to do." and telling people what they believe makes you sound like a massive massive douche. You are projecting that you have read enough to know more than myself. If you toned down the arrogance and the "my shit smells good" attitude you have, some of us might actually entertain your ideas. But continuing to act like you know-it-all and that other people are below you will get you nowhere.
How many people have called you arrogant Fishermage? I know quite a few people here have, yet you blow them off and continue posting crap.
You are an asshole. Plain and simple, and I'm sick of it. I will continue debating with people like smokemonsc. At least he doesn't act like his word is law and all others just simply haven't discovered the truth yet.
You come off equally snide; only you are also ignorant. You also sound like a massive douche -- but you also don't know what you are talking about and show that you are not very well read with every post. I am far from a know it all -- the more I know, the more I know that I don't know. I know I am arrogant; it is my biggest sin. I am working on it -- but when faced with folks like you -- it is hard not to be. My word is not law. I have made more mistakes than I can count -- been prove wrong many times and changed my whole point of view several times. I WANT a challenge -- I WANT to be proven wrong -- this brings me closer to ultimate truth. Challenge everything I say -- IF YOU CAN. The trouble is you can't and then you just get all pissed off. READ. LEARN. GROW. The kick my ass. You are a far bigger asshole than me, since you are as arrogant as me and yet you are ignorant. At least I know a few things. I'll never get sick of you or most of the people here, because I always hold out hope for everyone. Also, I admire your passion and your spunk. I enjoy you, since as I said, you are at least as arrogant as I am, and I like that. Now if you could just add some KNOWLEDGE to back it up, you could rock the place. |
|
|
10/13/09 8:13:53 PM#25
Originally posted by smokemonsc
I don't think doctors have as much say as you would tout, yes for little things like office visits and othe minor proceedures - they could and many do do it for free. But to present that the power to treat "ultimately" risides with them is not actually true. Where would that doctor preform that proceedure? You simplify something that is not that simple. I will not say that insurance companys are "evil" so much as "soulless" entities in the business of making money off the good health of its consumers. An un-healthy consumer represents a risk to said profit and some, not all, agency's are rather suspect in how they handle those costly claims. Smoke would say that there are not folks employeed by the insrance companys' whose job is to review and deny claims - and they don't even have medical degrees or little to no medical training? Some even hypotheses that these peoples true job is to find those "loop holes" within someones policy. While I wouldn't go that far... it is scary when you hear about somone getting a bonus or raise when they've saved the company tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical claims . Freedom? You all talk about freedom and government this or that. Wake up! You are already paying for many of those uninsured because they are getting treatment and they don't have any assests that can be seized. You all pay with higher premiums and co-pays for less care, more expensive doctor visits and medicaltions, increased costs for hospital stays and treatment... I will end by saying I am not happy with anything that has been or being presented; though I have not read the new bill, but intend on doing so soon. My opinion may change with regard to the Baucus bill after I have read it for myself but my opinion about the need for health care reform remains unchanged - we need reform.
|
|
|
10/13/09 8:21:23 PM#26
Originally posted by kiddyno071
I don't think doctors have as much say as you would tout, yes for little things like office visits and othe minor proceedures - they could and many do do it for free. But to present that the power to treat "ultimately" risides with them is not actually true. Where would that doctor preform that proceedure? You simplify something that is not that simple. I will not say that insurance companys are "evil" so much as "soulless" entities in the business of making money off the good health of its consumers. An un-healthy consumer represents a risk to said profit and some, not all, agency's are rather suspect in how they handle those costly claims. Smoke would say that there are not folks employeed by the insrance companys' whose job is to review and deny claims - and they don't even have medical degrees or little to no medical training? Some even hypotheses that these peoples true job is to find those "loop holes" within someones policy. While I wouldn't go that far... it is scary when you hear about somone getting a bonus or raise when they've saved the company tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical claims . Freedom? You all talk about freedom and government this or that. Wake up! You are already paying for many of those uninsured because they are getting treatment and they don't have any assests that can be seized. You all pay with higher premiums and co-pays for less care, more expensive doctor visits and medicaltions, increased costs for hospital stays and treatment... I will end by saying I am not happy with anything that has been or being presented; though I have not read the new bill, but intend on doing so soon. My opinion may change with regard to the Baucus bill after I have read it for myself but my opinion about the need for health care reform remains unchanged - we need reform.
I agree, only I believe we need radical reform. What is the problem? health care costs are too high, and what does that imply? demand, which is nearly infinite, is not being met by supply. That means there is only one answer -- we need more supply. That to me is the only sensible way to address the problem. now, what keeps the supply of medical goods, services and practitioners low? The government. Regulations. the AMA. Things like that. Government is protecting a racket. THIS is where we have to look for our answer. Thus far we are assuming supply as the GIVEN and looking for ways to distribute that. I think we need to sink that ship and look at this from a whole new angle. |
|
|
10/13/09 8:34:36 PM#27
Originally posted by kiddyno071
You bring up some pretty good points. I actually would go so far as to say that there are employees at healthcare companies that look for loop holes within someones policy. I am for regulations which force more transparency as it fits my definition of the proper role of government. To protect its citizens, Life, Liberty, and Property. To protect from fraud, coercion, and to uphold the rule of law. All contracts should be as clear as possible and when clever people find ways to circumvent contract law, contract law can change to make those exploits harder and preferably impossible. I think most complaints can be solved by opening the insurance markets to free market forces. The loop hole example is a prime target. In a free market if a company persists in this (I call it borderline fraud) popular dissent will be high enough for a competitor to come in and undercut the other company's market share thus putting pressure on the existing company to remove the unwanted behavior or risk going out of business. The problem is government interference stops this from happening. The barriers to entry to the healthcare insurance market are HUGE. There is NO LOGICAL reason why I shouldn't be able to start my own health insurance company RIGHT NOW. But that's not the case. It is nearly impossible. -----I think I am quite aware of what I am paying for :) and this is why I am for free market principles and why I am trying to convince people like yourself that what we have is an oligarchy, that is blaming the "free market" (which doesn't exist) for problems that the oligarchy created, which it then says the only solution to the excesses of the "free market" (which again, doesn't exist) is more government, more barriers to entry, and to top it off, add a public option which will cement the oligarchy until our government goes broke. I have half a mind to convert all of my assets to gold, ditch the dollar, move to New Hampshire buy some land and live off it :) Seriously though, I love New Hampshire! Do you support Liberty, Freedom and wish to Uphold the Constitution? Join the movement - http://CampaignForLiberty.com |
|
|
10/13/09 8:46:52 PM#28
While it is hard for me to give up my beautiful wooded acres in Connecticut, I keep thinking about moving up there more and more. Since the last census my state has fallen down further than any state in the union. Lowell Wicker you bastard! All it takes is one income tax to ruin your whole state. |
|
|
10/13/09 9:14:30 PM#29
double post... |
|
|
10/13/09 10:20:10 PM#30
Originally posted by Sabiancym
ACTUALLY, it is. Insurance companies allowing someone to die because they managed to find a small loophole in the fine print of the contract that allows them not to pay for their medical care is controlling a life.
And stop acting like the government is some all mighty being that we have no control of. The government is made up of citizens, voted in by citizens, and at the mercy of citizens. No matter how many tinfoil hats you put on. Maybe you should be mad at the voter majority instead of the government.
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't. |
|
|
10/13/09 10:44:51 PM#31
Originally posted by Sargoth
ACTUALLY, it is. Insurance companies allowing someone to die because they managed to find a small loophole in the fine print of the contract that allows them not to pay for their medical care is controlling a life.
And stop acting like the government is some all mighty being that we have no control of. The government is made up of citizens, voted in by citizens, and at the mercy of citizens. No matter how many tinfoil hats you put on. Maybe you should be mad at the voter majority instead of the government.
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? |
|
|
10/13/09 10:48:18 PM#32
Originally posted by Sabiancym
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? Women voting has always been a right, it was just denied to them. Big difference. Your too ignorant to realize that if you have to force something on people, then it's not a right. |
|
|
10/13/09 10:54:40 PM#33
Originally posted by Sargoth
No one is forced (until now) to buy insurance at all. Insurance companies can give coverage or not to whomever they choose to -- it's their business. They control no one, expect when they buy off government. Forcing one person to take care of another is control, which is what you advocate -- mutual slavery. I am not mad at anyone, I simply disagree with the fascism you support. I'm calling it fascism because calling it socialism upsets you so much, and fascism is more accurate, since this is government control over the economy rather than outright ownership.
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? Women voting has always been a right, it was just denied to them. Big difference. Your too ignorant to realize that if you have to force something on people, then it's not a right.
So by giving women the right to vote, you weren't forcing people to pay their tax dollars towards the registering of those women? The printing of extra ballots? The extra resources going into counting those millions of new ballots?
If using tax dollars to pay for health care for everyone is "forcing" others to pay for something they don't want to, than we should probably rework some of the "rights" granted to us in that thing you call the constitution and the bill of rights.
How is that any different than this? Or is it just the amount of money that gets the juices flowing?? |
|
|
10/13/09 10:59:31 PM#34
Originally posted by Sabiancym
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? Women voting has always been a right, it was just denied to them. Big difference. Your too ignorant to realize that if you have to force something on people, then it's not a right.
So by giving women the right to vote, you weren't forcing people to pay their tax dollars towards the registering of those women? The printing of extra ballots? The extra resources going into counting those millions of new ballots?
If using tax dollars to pay for health care for everyone is "forcing" others to pay for something they don't want to, than we should probably rework some of the "rights" granted to us in that thing you call the constitution and the bill of rights.
How is that any different than this? Or is it just the amount of money that gets the juices flowing??
O your right, I suppose we should have not given women the choice to vote because we didn't have enough ballots. Silly me. Your right, using tax dollars to pay for health care is forcing people to pay for something they don't have a choice in, therefore not a right. Which rights are you wanting to rework? And still the question, if you have to force it upon people, is it a right or not? |
|
|
10/13/09 11:01:26 PM#35
Originally posted by Sargoth
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? Women voting has always been a right, it was just denied to them. Big difference. Your too ignorant to realize that if you have to force something on people, then it's not a right.
So by giving women the right to vote, you weren't forcing people to pay their tax dollars towards the registering of those women? The printing of extra ballots? The extra resources going into counting those millions of new ballots?
If using tax dollars to pay for health care for everyone is "forcing" others to pay for something they don't want to, than we should probably rework some of the "rights" granted to us in that thing you call the constitution and the bill of rights.
How is that any different than this? Or is it just the amount of money that gets the juices flowing??
O your right, I suppose we should have not given women the choice to vote because we didn't have enough ballots. Silly me. Your right, using tax dollars to pay for health care is forcing people to pay for something they don't have a choice in, therefore not a right. Which rights are you wanting to rework? And still the question, if you have to force it upon people, is it a right or not?
You completely missed the point. Or possibly ignored it.
Goodnight. |
|
|
10/13/09 11:07:54 PM#36
Originally posted by Sabiancym
That's the bread and butter right there. You believe it SHOULD be, therefore you realize it isn't.
You're point? People thought woman's suffrage should be a right, but realized it wasn't. Until they changed that. And now it is. What exactly were you trying to get at? Women voting has always been a right, it was just denied to them. Big difference. Your too ignorant to realize that if you have to force something on people, then it's not a right.
So by giving women the right to vote, you weren't forcing people to pay their tax dollars towards the registering of those women? The printing of extra ballots? The extra resources going into counting those millions of new ballots?
If using tax dollars to pay for health care for everyone is "forcing" others to pay for something they don't want to, than we should probably rework some of the "rights" granted to us in that thing you call the constitution and the bill of rights.
How is that any different than this? Or is it just the amount of money that gets the juices flowing??
What brought health acre about? How did this thing happen. Women always existed, and always had rights, and those rights were always denied to them. health care however was an invention of man. It is not something inherent in our nature as humans, it was something that had to be made, created, built upon, and learned. It required the work of others. How does was such a thing always a right? Any right I have I can DEFEND by myself BY FORCE. All the government is is my agent. How is health care, or anything that requires many other people working, the same thing? |
|
|
10/13/09 11:13:49 PM#37
Originally posted by Sabiancym
You completely missed the point. Or possibly ignored it.
Goodnight. I could say the same, bud. I could say the same. Of course, I know you ignored it because unless you have horrible reading comprehension (shrug) I asked you a question that I'm fairly certain your never want to have to answer. |
|
|
10/13/09 11:38:39 PM#38
This bill blows BUT the House and Senate bills can be merged together to create a better bill. The public option is still on the table. Pelosi thinks it can pass the house with all D support while Baucus doesn't. I think Baucus has a little too much pride. |
|
|
deviliscious
 Novice Member
Joined: 11/09/07
"Adjusts ponytails and pulls the lollipop out of my mouth" |
10/13/09 11:43:04 PM#39
What concerns me is that this lays the groundwork for them to come back later and make a bigger mess of things. Passing a broken bill is NOT better than doing nothing. Passing a broken bill allows for when anyone tries to fix healthcare later, they can come back and say," see what a mess it made last time we tried this?!" and ensure we never get REAL healthcare reform. Lose-lose for us. |
|
10/13/09 11:49:39 PM#40
Originally posted by deviliscious
Possibly true. You could spin it that way. But as representative Snowe put it: She would rather see the ball ralling on healthcare reform than not. |
|
