“We will stand up in this election to bring about the change that won’t just win an election, but will transform America You’re doing a damn good job of that. I hardly recognize this country anymore. We have an economy that’s in the tank, we have healthscare, cap and tax, smart grid, government motors, we have a secretary of the treasury that doesn’t pay his taxes, a Congress that can’t be bothered to read a massive bill before they pass it, we have Obama lackeys, aka czars, who believe in eugenics, forced abortions, population control, human rights for animals, FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and the “fairness” doctrine for the internet, we have a government with more power than it’s had since maybe FDR and a thousand other things we should be worried about. So a Surgeon General that’s overweight is at the bottom of that barrel.

63 Responses to “Is It 1984 Yet?”


  • Nothing like a few exaggerations and falsehoods to make it sound much worse, huh? Chris, you’re high-strung enough as it is. Here’s my prescription for you: Lay off the Beck for a while, and quit over-exaggerating everything. If you talk in realistic terms, it may not always seem like the end of the world to you anymore. It’ll be great for your blood pressure. Trust me on this one. :P


  • Obama did say he wanted to transform America, the economy is in the tank, we have health care and global warming bills that we can’t afford, the government did take over General Motors, Tim Geithner didn’t pay his taxes, Congress has signed bills that they admitted they hadn’t read, John Holdren co-authored a book that pushed the idea of forced abortions and population control, Cass Sunstein has voiced his support of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and a “fairness” doctrine for the internet and he wrote a book that claimed animals should be allowed to bring suit in court and the government does have more power then ever. So I’m not sure where the exaggerations and falsehoods are? And I think I’ll remain angry. Someone has to not be the blind Obama ass kisser.


  • Interesting. Reasic cannot address the substance of what Chris wrote, just attack him personally. How typical.


  • Teach, not every statement requires rebuttal. If some idiot came in here, claiming that poop tastes great and is less filling, I’m not going to waste my time refuting him. He’s obviously a nut. However, if you want a rebuttal, here it is:

    We have an economy that’s in the tank…

    Yes, and it was so before Obama ever took office, but I’m sure this is all Obama’s fault, right? It’s going to take a while to fix all that Bush screwed up to get us in this mess.

    …we have healthscare…

    The only reason this is so scary to you is that you listen to, and soak in, every crazy, emotional diatribe from that lunatic, Beck, on the subject. If you’d take a few minutes to think objectively about it, you’d come to understand that this plan is nothing like the “socialized medicine” in Canada or Europe. By the way, why don’t you ask some of the people who are dealing with health problems, bills piling up, and lay-offs, what they think about this plan. Not in that situation? Lucky you.

    …cap and tax…

    You haven’t the first clue about climate science, so it’s no surprise that you disagree with any effort to curb global warming.

    …smart grid…

    So you’re against clean energy now?

    …government motors…

    Ah. Bush handed out enormous bail outs, bought large lending institutions, AND pushed this off on Obama:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/03/cheney-bush-gm/

    …we have a secretary of the treasury that doesn’t pay his taxes…

    There was a three year lapse in payment, due to the way that the IMF handled payroll. This has since been paid. This statement is AT BEST misleading.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99361676

    …a Congress that can’t be bothered to read a massive bill before they pass it…

    Happens all the time. Welcome to America.

    …we have Obama lackeys, aka czars, who believe in eugenics, forced abortions…

    Over thirty years ago, Holdren was co-author of a 1,000+ page textbook, called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment”, in one chapter of which “a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth”. Describing many different measures is very different from advocating any of them.

    http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

    …FDR’s Second Bill of Rights and the “fairness” doctrine for the internet…

    Read below: Sunstein “once considered” fairness doctrine for the net, but “then thought better of it”. He once said something to that effect in a book, but later altered his viewpoint in a more recent book, and even called it a “bad idea” in a recent interview. So, why is this still something that you’re so uptight about?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/05/chain-email/cass-sunstein-once-considered-fairnes-doctrine-sor/

    Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.


  • You cannot take things that Obama and his cronies say at face value. Look at their actions. If we look at what they are doing, Chris is right to be concerned. Take healthcare for instance. If you actually read some of the crap in the bill it sounds like a government takeover of healthcare, no matter what Prez. BO says.

    Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

    Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

    Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

    Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

    PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

    Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

    Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

    PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

    Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

    PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

    PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

    PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example – Translation 4 illegal aliens

    Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

    PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – U Health care WILL b rationed

    -PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

    pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop

    pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

    Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

    Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

    Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

    pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

    Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

    Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

    Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

    PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that

    Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

    Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you’ll all be paid the same

    PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

    PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

    PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

    PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

    Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

    Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

    Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

    Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

    pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

    Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

    Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

    Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

    Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

    PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

    Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

    PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

    PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

    Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

    PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

    Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

    PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

    Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

    Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

    PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

    Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html
    http://www.nadmennymillicent.com/2009/07/specific-examples-directly-taken-from.html


  • SSG,

    This entire list is BUNK! You should spend more time fact-checking your partisan sources, instead of copying and pasting this mindless nonsense.

    For instance:

    Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

    There isn’t even a line “25” on page 126, and NONE of it refers to which employees must be covered.

    Here’s the actual bill:

    http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf


  • I find it ironic, by the way, that SSG would come in here claiming that Obama can’t be taken at face value, and would in the very same comment, post this list of junk that does not even come close to accurately describing what’s in the House bill.


  • Yes, and it was so before Obama ever took office…
    Yes, the economy was in the crapper when Obama took office and he’s made it worse. We’re heading towards double digit unemployment because he seems to think the way out of bankruptcy is to spend money we don’t have. Now, I only took 1 economics class in high school, but I don’t recall that lesson being taught. It’s been six months, you have to stop blaming Bush for everything.

    The only reason this is so scary to you…
    How do we afford Obama’s health care plan? Over tax the evil rich? Because that’s not going to work.

    Not in that situation? Lucky you.
    Of course many will support it. They’ve bought into the lie that it’s free. We’ve been conditioned into believing that the government’s job is to take care of us. And yeah, I know nothing about having to go to the ER twice last year and dental bills and other stuff. Because, as everyone knows, all us rich fat cats who don’t worry about insurance bills live in trailer parks. In other words, I’m poor and do worry about bills. Please don’t presume to know my private life.

    You haven’t the first clue about climate science…
    You caught me. I want the planet to die. It’s been a dream of mine since I was 7. I don’t disagree with any effort to curb global warming, I mean climate change, it’s that I don’t buy into that man is the cause. And I don’t support spending billions that we don’t have to do it.

    So you’re against clean energy now?
    No, I’m against giving the government the power to regulate how much energy I consume.

    Ah. Bush handed out enormous bail outs…
    And Obama has continued it.

    There was a three year lapse in payment…
    Can I get away with that excuse? Probably not.

    Happens all the time. Welcome to America.
    So that makes it OK?

    Over thirty years ago
    Oh, well that’s fine then. Kind of like when Bush went “AWOL”, right? Talking about eugenics as a possible solution makes you bat shit crazy. But it’s the Obama administration. I’d expect no less.

    So, why is this still something that you’re so uptight about?
    Because we’ve had members of Congress suggest that it’s a good idea.


  • I think its ironic that someone who clearly has not read the bill would say that. So there’s a few lines mis-typed in this list. Read the bill. It is purposely loose worded and at times incoherent. There are very troubling items within in it. The framework for low quality, rationed government run healthcare is there. We are suffering from a tyranny of incompetence. Almost every single politician serving today needs to be thrown out of office. Especially the idiots pushing this healthcare bill and the ones who voted for the cap and trade scam that passed the house a few weeks ago.


  • http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_care_news_conference.html

    Obama mangles facts in his news conference. The teleprompter told him to lie? NO WAY!


  • I am half way done double checking the article I cited. So far maybe 2 questionable lines. The bill is somewhat non-specific. Hard to say what the intent is and that is the point. The author’s interpretation is at times worst case scenario, but that in itself is a problem. It is a very poorly written bill.


  • Chris,

    Half the time, you didn’t even address the crux of my arguments. For example, with the issue of eugenics, you took the “thirty years ago” part, and answered that it must be “fine then”, but completely ignored the rest of my argument, which closed with the fact that he did not make any statement of endorsement of any of those methods mentioned. They were listed and described in a textbook — hardly an endorsement. If you’re going to refute me, you might want to address my argument as a whole. If you only address part, you can’t possibly prove what I said wrong, and any intelligent person will see past it.

    It’s been six months, you have to stop blaming Bush for everything.

    I’m not “blaming Bush for everything”, but you know that. It just makes for an easy talking point for you to spout anytime he’s mentioned. Look, when you lay the groundwork for a massive collapse with your anti-government, deregulation policies, it’s going to take more than just a few months to get the train back on its tracks.

    How do we afford Obama’s health care plan? Over tax the evil rich?

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. There will be savings due to various measures within the bill, but yes, there will also be a tax increase of about 1% or so on the wealthiest Americans. Is another 1% over-taxing for the super wealthy? You make it sound so dramatic, like their tax rate is jumping to WWII era highs (80-90%). They are currently in the 30’s, and should stay there. It’s not a huge jump, so please quit making drastic overstatements.

    Please don’t presume to know my private life.

    Oh, so you’ve been laid off? I didn’t think so. That was the main point, which you once again completely missed. People who already have medical needs and are struggling with bills, AND who lose their jobs, will have an even more difficult time either paying for Cobra, or trying to get coverage on their own. This healthcare bill provides them with more options and prevents them from being turned down due to “pre-existing conditions”.

    You caught me. I want the planet to die. It’s been a dream of mine since I was 7. I don’t disagree with any effort to curb global warming, I mean climate change, it’s that I don’t buy into that man is the cause. And I don’t support spending billions that we don’t have to do it.

    Again, don’t put words in my mouth. By the way, how could you possibly want to do anything to curb global warming, if you don’t think man is at fault?! If it’s natural, then it’ll run its course, right? That’s the WHOLE POINT of fighting the theory of anthropogenic global warming — so you don’t have to do anything about it.

    Besides, you proved my point about being clueless about it. Human activity isn’t solely to blame, but it has been the cause of most of the warming we’ve seen in recent decades, and will continue to be. If you don’t get that, then you obviously haven’t put forth a sufficient effort into objectively studying climate science.

    The rest of your rebuttals didn’t address my whole arguments. If you want to go back and do so, feel free.


  • SSG,

    I think its ironic that someone who clearly has not read the bill would say that. So there’s a few lines mis-typed in this list. Read the bill.

    I’ve read many breakdowns of the bill, including the CBO’s analysis. The vast majority of these tweets were taken out of context, if not completely fabricated. You can’t just take one small excerpt from the bill and apply it to all people if it’s passed. You must understand the context within which the statement was made. For instance, if the statement is about some form of “rationing”, it’s most likely discussing the public option, which is only one option available among the many other private health insurance providers.

    The most important thing to remember about this bill is that if you already have insurance and a doctor that you like, then you keep that. Nothing changes for you. No one’s going to tell you what doctor to go to, what prescriptions to buy, or what procedures you can or can’t have. Statements to that effect are only intended to scare you.

    Show me any particular statement that you are especially concerned about within the list you provided, and I’ll explain for you how you have nothing to worry about.


  • SSG,

    I’ll give you another example of how this guy that created this list didn’t know what he was looking at:

    Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

    If you go to pg 29, lines 4-16, you’ll see that this section is discussing limits on cost sharing. Scroll up to pgs 8 and 9 for a definition: “The term ‘cost-sharing’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services”.

    So, if cost sharing is the amount that you have to pay for services, then a section on a limitation of cost sharing is setting a limit on the amount you have to fork out, NOT on the amount of coverage you receive. Therefore this is NOT about rationing your health care.

    Next.


  • One more:

    Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

    This section is about the establishment of a Health Choices Administration, and the duties of its Commissioner. To understand this section, you must understand that this bill will set up a “Health Insurance Exchange”, in which private insurance companies will compete with each other and with the public option. In this exchange, there will be three or four standard plans that must be offered, so that everyone is on the same level, and to help reduce confusion over benefits being offered by competing plans. So, this section sets the Commissioner’s duties, one of which is to help determine what those standard plans offered in the exchange should look like.

    This has nothing to do with a reduction in choice. You can still choose the level of coverage that is right for you, and most importantly, if you already have coverage that you like, you keep it and none of this applies to you.


  • There, now there’s three that are debunked. Do you see how frustrating and unfair this is? You and countless others are posting this ridiculous list of lies, put together by some guy who didn’t understand that legislation that he was skimming through, and it only takes you a few seconds to copy and paste it. However, to debunk this junk, I have to spend several minutes per point to try to prove to you how he got it wrong. Ignorance spreads like wildfire, consuming all of those who are gullible enough to believe it and not fact-check it to the bill itself.


  • Irrespective of the debate going on here, for the first time Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is showing Obama with a 49% approval rating, and a 51% disapproval rating. His policies have clearly taken their toll on him.


  • LB,

    With bogus scare tactics like the one SSG posted above, I wouldn’t be surprised to see poll numbers slump. You know, I would think it would help your cause to at least be sure that arguments advanced are valid. Would you like to offer your own two cents on the list of problems with the health care bill above?

    I would like to know more about the poll, like what, specifically, people disapprove of. I know there are some liberals who are upset because they’re not getting everything they wanted. Do you have a link to the full poll?


  • Reasic, if you saw a poll conducted by BET that showed Obama with an 80% approval rating you wouldn’t even bat an eyelash in quoting it as gospel truth and sure wouldn’t bother to check the sample. It’s just par for the course for you, when confronted with one of the most reputable polls in the business, to pick it to pieces in absolute desperation to hope it’s not true. I could give you the aforementioned info you wanted, but track record indicates I would simply be casting pearls before swine. So, you’ve got fingers, do your own Google work.


  • LB,

    I don’t know what I said to you to make you so cross, but you sure seem to exaggerate everything I say, and respond in a very disrespectful manner. Honestly, it’s unbecoming.

    I don’t recall picking the poll to pieces, or hoping it’s not true. I did not state that I disagree that 51% of people polled disapprove of Obama. I just want to know why.


  • How about we tackle another claim in SSG’s list, just for kicks?!

    Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

    Okay, this page falls under Section 1173A of the bill, which discusses the standardization of “electronic administrative transactions”, and is an amendment to a section of the Social Security Act. I see no mention in this section, much less that particular page, of the government have direct access to your bank accounts. Rather, the lines in question seem to be about enabling electronic funds transfers between the government and health care providers. This must be viewed in the context of the entire section, which is about standardizing the attempt to streamline the various processes involved electronically, in an effort to save money. This isn’t an attempt to steal your money.


  • One more:

    PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

    Section 164 simply makes no mention of unions or community orgs, much less ACORN. This was made up.


  • So, Reasic, are you willing to switch yourself and your family over to this plan if it passes?


  • Of course ACORN isn’t mentioned by name in the bill, but I will guarantee that they will have their fingers all over it. Excerpts of the bill are left open to interpretation. The goverment will ration care because the langauge in the bill will allow them to. They will be forced to. There will be fewer doctors. Every doctor I talked to over the last few weeks is telling their interns “if this thing passes there is no sense in being a doctor. Get out now.” Wages will go down so there will be fewer doctors. Presumably 45 million new people will have access to the system. More people, fewer doctors = rationing and long lines. People will have no reason to be thrifty with health services and so we will see rampant overuse and abuse of the system. Bottom line is this is a very very bad piece of legislation. It will solve none of the problems we are having in healthcare. It will create a host of new problems. This bill is crap. That’s why B.O. is trying to ram it down our throats before people can read it.


  • Wow, what a string of logic, SSG! So, instead of discussing specific claims, as I have, you’re just going to generalize and assume, and base your argument on that? There’s no need for any of the statements you provided about rationing to be valid, because you can build a half-witted argument to that effect, and voila! RATIONING!! This is typical.

    By the way, does every doctor you’ve talked to disagree with the AMA, because they’ve endorsed the bill.


  • Teach,

    What is it with you and these red herrings you always come up with? What “plan” are you talking about? This bill creates an exchange, in which many different private insurance companies compete for my business with each other and with a public option. Each of these, will offer one of three or four different plans (levels of coverage). So what exactly are you asking me if I would switch to?

    By the way, I have coverage through my employer, for which I pay about $5000 per year, and for what I consider to be a lousy plan. Although, I like my doctor. So, I may check out the exchange whenever I’m able, to see if I can get a better plan for a better price.


  • Reasic you are an idealogue. Logic is wasted on you so I don’t really feel there is a need to refute your nonsense line by line. It would do no good. You are too trusting of government, at least when your team is in charge. You fail to think beyond the first level. Read the bill more carefully. Do not focus on the obvious. The AMA does not speak for every doctor or even most doctors. I doubt the AMA has read the bill either. Congress sure the hell hasn’t read it. The AMA is not thinking beyond the first step either. The ultimate aim of this legislation is to crowd out private insurers and eventually leave only a public option in place. Obama is a proponent of a single payer system. His words in 2003. He has not changed. He knows we cannot get there all at once because the American people would not alow it. This bill is the first step. Not all of the pieces are there yet, but the framework is. Again, why is Obama trying to rush this so fast? If it is such a great idea let’s look at the plan and have an open debate. He knows this plan is crap. He knows that if people have a chance to analyze it they will reject it. If this is such a great plan why not enroll Congress and all federal employees into it? No instead the political elite and federal employees will keep their buffet of private options while we the little people are stuck with crap. If the plan is not good enough for Obama and his cronies then it is not good enough for me. Pardon my skepticism but I do not trust this government. I have always had a healthy skepticism of government and in this case it is clearly warranted.


  • SSG,

    I fail to “think beyond the first level”?! Listen, bud, YOU’RE the one who copy/pasted some garbage on this blog without first determining for yourself if it was valid!!

    You claim to want “an open debate”, but you don’t seem to understand what that means. In order to have an open and HONEST debate, we must ensure that we are working with valid information to support our cases. You posted something here to support your case that I consider to be bunk, and I have made several specific arguments to that effect. You, however, have failed to respond to them, choosing instead to talk in generalities, using logical fallacies and various assumptions about what MIGHT happen.

    I want to discuss these claims you’ve posted in detail, so we can figure out whether the information you presented is valid. Why does that make me an ideologue?


  • So, I’m guessing that is a “no”, reasic. Funny how NONE of you folks who support this massive plan actually want to participate in it yourselves.


  • Teach, for the love of God, what “plan” are you talking about?!


  • SSG, a qualification on what he means by “valid information.” “Valid information” is any that he agrees with. “Invalid information” is any that contradicts him, in which case he will nit-pick, split hairs, and grasp for any reason whatsoever to discount and discard it without addressing the substance. Does he put his own “valid information” through the same level of scrutiny? No. Not in the slightest.


  • I don’t have time to try to convince you when you have already made up your mind. It would be a wasted effort for me to pull each line and analyze it for you. Again if this is such a great plan as you and B.O. seem to contend then why the rush? If we had time to debate this honestly I would go through every shred of this tangled mess of legislation, analyze it, and break it down “Barney style” so that everyone would understand exactly what is in it. As it stands we have the government trying to ram it down our throats at break neck speed. That alone throws up red flags for me. Remember the BS stimulus plan that we had to pass right away or there would be martial law, civil unrest, unemployment might reach 8%, and all the rest of the fear mongering the administration perpetuated. Well we passed the stimulus and now unemployment is nearly 10% and rising. In some places it’s closer to 15-20%. That’s what you get when you rush crap through Congress. No one read the stimulus slush fund bill that has created ZERO jobs and is rampant with fraud and corruption. When they vote on this healthcare bill in the House, again without reading it, there is sure to be some unpleasant surprises. Just because you think the article I cited is flawed, it doesn’t make it so. You mentioned a few lines that could go either way. They are not spelled out in stone and they do allow for the government to do exactly what the author percieved it to mean. Was this the intent of the bill’s writers? Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that the government will have access to a troubling level of power and interference into the economy and into people’s personal lives. There are 31 inefficient government entities either created or involved in this legislation. How’s social security doing? How’s medicare/medicaid? How’s TARP working out? How has anything the government ever wiggled its massive cumbersome iron fist into worked out? The government has never made anything more efficient. Never made anything cheaper. Never created a plan that wasn’t riddled with corruption. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. We have tried government interference and intervention into economic and social problems for at least the last 100 years. Every time it has either failed, created new problems, or been an unmitigated disaster. I am a “big picture” kind of thinker. The long run is what matters to me because I have children. We are destroying the future. Just as social security and medicare is unsustainable. So will this healthcare scambe . So I do not feel the need to waste my time and resources proving the sky is blue to the blind. You made you decision. You are going to support your fearless leader even if he leads this country off a cliff. That’s why I consider you an idealogue. This is a liberty issue and you are on the side of the tyrants. Government has no business meddling in healthcare or any other industry. Government has created the problems we are having now. Why the hell would I give crack to a crack addict to try to solve the crack problem? Valid information? You expect the government to give you valid information? They are lying to you. It probably doesn’t matter what is written in the bill actually. The government will exceed its authority anyway. It always does. Wake up! The politicians are destroying this country. This is not a left or right , dem or repub issue. Both political parties are equally useless to me. Our problems will not be solved until we throw out the politicians like Obama and most of Congress and put real Americans in there. The Founders never intended for us to be ruled by and elite class of well connected politicians. We are supposed to self-govern. The government has no legitimate right to execute this course of action. Simple, targeted, and common sense alternatives are available. The government chose instead an inefficient, ineffective behemoth that will be a disaster for this country. I don’t have time nor the inclination to sqabble over each line with obama-drones.


  • Thanks for contributing nothing of importance to this conversation, LB. Have YOU compared any of these statements to the bill? No? Then, why are you making public declarations of what you assume I mean by “valid information”?


  • What is this, an exercise in stream of consciousness? Sheesh, SSG, organize your thoughts. It’s like your head exploded, and all of your conservative/libertarian talking points all came pouring out at once.

    This is not a matter of what I think about the article. We have both the article and the bill. If we compare the two, the article either accurately describes the bill or it doesn’t. This isn’t an issue of a few lines that could “go either way”, either. Take the comment on pg 145, for instance:

    Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

    These lines in question are only describing which employers have to abide by the rules set forth in this section on employer contributions. One of the requirements is that they offer autoenrollment “in accordance with subsection (c)”. Scrolling down to subsection (c), paragraph (2), you will find that employees are clearly given the choice to opt-out of employer coverage. So much for “NO CHOICE”. Maybe the author should’ve given this more than a skim.

    You see? Here’s a perfect example of how the bill was clearly misinterpreted. Do you honestly disagree?


  • Some of Obama’s Health Care Claims Do Not Withstand A Fact Check
    Thursday, July 23, 2009
    By Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press
    Some excerpts:

    “OBAMA: “We already have rough agreement” on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: “It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it.”

    THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn’t covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.”

    “It’s true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.”

    This bill is not the end game, it is the first step. Once again you need to think beyond the first level. Is the bill going to do what the guy who wrote that other article said it would? Maybe not right away. Maybe not at all in some cases. The point is this will lay the groundwork for the government to take over completely. This is a backdoor to socialized government controlled healthcare. Obama even admits he doesn’t know what is in the House version of this bill. I should not expect anyone else to know I suppose. Now the AP is certainly no Conservative bastion, so I hope you don’t have a problem with this particular source. At any rate I am no longer interested in this thread. I have neither the time or patience to argue with those who have made their mind up before getting to the heart of the matter. If I thought this bill could work I would be ok with it. If this really was a good idea that would solve problems I would embrace it. Unfortunately this is just more political posturing and governmental power grabbing. It is all a game. Obama is just another politician. He has no intention of solving any problems. His only goal is to acquire more power for himself and his friends.


  • This is a backdoor to socialized government controlled healthcare.

    I see now what you mean by thinking “beyond the first level”. This is called a slippery slope fallacy. This bill is not socialized medicine, nor does it “lay the groundwork” for socialized medicine. Such a move would require a new bill, which would most likely never pass a vote in Congress.

    I have neither the time or patience to argue with those who have made their mind up before getting to the heart of the matter.

    And you haven’t? I’m interested in what the facts tell me. You, however, have approached this ideologically, and have expressed absolutely no interest in knowing whether the information that you’ve presented is factual. As long as it scares people away from this health care bill, who cares if it’s true, right?

    If I thought this bill could work I would be ok with it. If this really was a good idea that would solve problems I would embrace it.

    That’s exactly the problem. You claim that you don’t think the bill could work, but what are you basing that on? You haven’t read the bill, and the only information you’ve presented to explain it was completely bogus. So, you’re simply misinformed. How can you possibly know whether or not the bill would work, if you don’t even understand the bill in the first place?!?! THAT’S exactly why I’ve been trying to discuss the information you presented here. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

    Obama is just another politician. He has no intention of solving any problems. His only goal is to acquire more power for himself and his friends.

    It amazes me how many conservative ideologues I’ve encountered, who would rather rely on assumptions of others’ motives, and on misinformation and political talking points, rather than on factual information on a given subject. Logic is thrown out the window when one is blinded by ideology. And to top it all off, I usually end up being the one who’s called an ideologue, because I don’t want to accept the same misinformation that other ideologues have decided to rely on.

    This is just one of many subjects in which I have tried to honestly discuss the available information, only to be thwarted with red herrings and other fallacious diversions. My perspective is that, on ANY subject, we should be able to study and discuss the available information, eventually agree on the facts, and then develop an informed opinion.

    For the record, I have NOT made up my mind. I don’t think this bill will solve all of our health care problems. I usually just end up playing the role of the devil’s advocate, by challenging the information that has been presented. This article that you presented was just one of many examples of blatant misinformation that I’ve seen from conservatives. You might actually have some valid arguments about why this bill won’t work, but when you present misinformation, it just confuses the issue, and reduces the credibility of your argument.

    No one on your side of the aisle believes me about this, basically because I don’t agree with them, but I honestly approached that subject very early on, with a blank slate. I tried very hard to be objective while learning about climate science. I studied the IPCC reports, research papers, and counter arguments. I debated with liberals and conservatives. My experience was that conservatives believed misinformation, which was easily debunked by basic climate science. What’s most unfortunate is that there are actually valid arguments against the worst case climate change scenarios, and against taking action.

    This has actually been very similar, in my opinion. There are probably some very reasonable arguments against taking action on health care, or at least on doing so in the way that Congress is currently going. However, you, SSG, have instead chosen to display misinformation, and get bogged down in a fight over nothing. I don’t know what else to say. Just please try to be sure that you’re basing your opinions on factual information. That’s all I ask.


  • “There are probably some very reasonable arguments against taking action on health care, or at least on doing so in the way that Congress is currently going.”

    You mean like the fact that this plan is mirrored off the one in Massachusetts, and by all accounts it isn’t working there. Yet, you cry and cripe about SSG’s sourcing and approach of the facts, even though when confronted with the abject problems of Massachusetts’ health care plan you dismiss and nitpick sources. The fact is you approached this bill about as blank as a Monet, and cherry-picked what sources and factoids you like to reinforce your belief in this plan. It’s no different than how everyone else approaches it, but for the love of God drop this sanctimonious bullshit about you being impartial and forming opinions ground-up from reliable information. You do not any more than any other ideologue does.


  • LB,

    Again, you’re making two very questionable assumptions, and presenting them as though they were facts. I’ve already discussed my reservations about your Massachusetts argument with you, but you’ve failed to respond. Apparently, you’d rather sit and complain that I won’t accept your one source.

    First, you are assuming that the two plans are the same. I don’t know that this is the case. Have you really seen any qualitative comparisons of the two plans that you’re not sharing with me, or are you taking one person’s word for it?

    Second, you’re assuming that the Massachusetts plan “has failed”. What is your measure of failure? Is it insolvent? Are even less people covered? What is it? If it really has failed, why did it fail?

    You see, I want to get beyond your partisan talking points to the heart of the matter. Let’s discuss facts. You have shown the ability to present intelligent arguments here in the past, but on this issue for some reason, you seem content to just take this talking point about Massachusetts and run with it, without really examining it in depth.

    There is even the possibility that the plans could be similar and that the Mass. plan isn’t working, but that these two do not then lead to the conclusion that a similar nationwide plan wouldn’t work. The bottom line is that this is a very simplistic argument, and for that reason, I refuse to take it at face value, based on one article from the Boston Globe. Several of his points, by the way, from what I understand would be fixed by measures in the current House bill, such as limits on out-of-posket expenses, and the creation of the exchange, in which people can shop for coverage independently of their employers.

    That I refuse to take your information at face value does not make me an ideologue. It makes me the opposite. If you want to discuss this argument in more detail, I’m ready when you are. That’s an open invitation. An ideologue would slam the door in your face. My mind is not made up. I need more information.


  • LB,

    I just wanted you to know that I found another article by the same author of the Boston Globe article you cited, which I thought was even more convincing:

    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/the_hijacking_of_hea.php

    Some more convincing points were made in this article. One reason I’ve heard, however, that they’re trying to push this solution instead, is that a direct shift to a single-payer system would be too big of a pill to swallow. I mean, look at all the hysteria over this one, and it’s not even “socialized medicine”. What is your answer to those who say that single payer couldn’t pass, and that this is the best workable option that we can get right now?


  • “Apparently, you’d rather sit and complain that I won’t accept your one source.”

    You squeal like a stuck pig whenever anybody tosses your sources. I’m not going to play a game with you where I spend any length of time hunting down sources just so you can nitpick them and say “not good enough” like a broken record. If you do it to one source (and, in my experience, you do it to every last source you are ever presented with that ever disagrees with you, either that or you ignore them totally and shift the debate to sources you have an easier time playing this game with), odds are you will just do it to them all. One is forced to come to one of two conclusions: either in your entire time being debated here you have never once encountered a legitimate, credible source that disagreed with what you say (the “Reasic is always right” scenario), or you are routinely encountered with reasonable other sources and your response is to stonewall, ignore, and nitpick, and then assert that you’ve not been confronted with any credible sources (the “Others debaters frequently have good points and sources but Reasic would rather act like a schmuck” scenario). I’d say the latter of the two is the most likely of these outcomes, and I’m not going to waste time throwing you sources so you can just dismiss anything that could alter your world view.

    “First, you are assuming that the two plans are the same. I don’t know that this is the case.”

    Prove credible differences or quit the intransigence.

    “Second, you’re assuming that the Massachusetts plan “has failed”. What is your measure of failure?”

    How about a failure to achieve stated goals? This plan was supposed to reduce costs and cover everybody. It has done neither. Insurance costs have risen steadily under this plan, and there are still many who have no insurance and are paying a tax penalty, some of whom legitimately have no access to an affordable plan (yes, there’s sources for these, no, I’m not going to bother, why waste my time hunting down the links, we all know what you do with sources that contradict your pre-fab opinions).

    “Is it insolvent?”

    No, it’s actually spending twice what it was projected to spend.

    “If it really has failed,”

    Look, either argue that it’s a success and back your argument, or quit trying to raise a hurdle five times higher than the standard you set for accepting this plan. In either case, I’m not going to dignify your sandbagging debate tactics with a response.

    “You see, I want to get beyond your partisan talking points to the heart of the matter.”

    You assume I ever approached this with partisan talking points. My chief gripe is the mandate. I adequately provided you sourcing in both the case of Massachusetts health care and Michigan automotive insurance mandates why these generally don’t work, and the more vigorous the enforcement the more of a failure the policy becomes. I told you before, my preference is for a single payer system. That’s hardly a partisan talking point unless you want to accuse me of taking talking points from the Green Party. This mandate is going to place a HUGE burden on people. Unlike with automotive insurance, where you at least have the theoretical option to not drive, a health insurance mandate is a directive from the government forcing you to purchase a financial service product just for being alive. In the Canadian single payer system health care is provided to you simply BECAUSE you are alive, payment is collected by virtue of taxation. This is a sad misdirection of the burden of general welfare responsibilities from the government which was instituted to promote the general welfare onto a citizenry now being demanded to secure it for themselves. Sorry, but neither the status quo, nor a legitimate single payer option are that misdirected in their priorities. But, I guess that’s just a Mitch McConnel focus group tested talking point for you.

    “The bottom line is that this is a very simplistic argument,”

    Things fall down because of gravity. That’s a simplistic argument too, doesn’t make it any less valid.

    “and for that reason, I refuse to take it at face value,”

    You refuse to take it on face value because it is something you have already made up your mind on. Seriously, what would it take to convince you that the federal bills now being considered are bad?


  • Things fall down because of gravity. That’s a simplistic argument too, doesn’t make it any less valid.

    Are you serious?! Newton didn’t submit this idea of gravity based on such a simplistic argument. Don’t present me with a proven theory in a simplistic manner, and then claim that it’s the same thing. You’re trying to prove an argument from scratch. It requires slightly more information.

    This isn’t about me always being right, or being a schmuck, as much as you’d like to make it that way. You’ve presented an incomplete argument. More specifically, you’ve prematurely drawn a conclusion from two unproven premises. Your argument is a simple syllogism:

    A) The Massachusetts plan has failed.

    B) The current health care bill is the same as the Massachusetts plan.

    C) The current health care bill will fail.

    A and B, therefore C.

    In order for this to be valid, you must prove premise A is true, prove premise B is true, and then also prove that the conclusion C can be inferred from the proven premises. I do not agree with any of these statements (yet).

    It seems that we’ve reached an impasse. You want me to prove your statement wrong. However, I get sick of being presented with simplistic arguments, and then having the burden placed on me to disprove them. I believe that the burden of proof rests on the person who is presenting the argument. However, you don’t want to spend the time proving anything, because you believe that I’ll just ignore it. I can tell you that’s not true all day long, but it probably won’t do any good.

    Now, as I said, I found another article, which had some more information in it that I found somewhat compelling. I’m still not completely sold, but I would like more information. I’d rather you took the time to prove your own arguments. As I said earlier, some of the problems presented by Dr. King seem to be answered via measures in the House bill.


  • I said I was done with this thread. It’s boring and I’m on vacation. First I am basing my opinion on common sense. What does the government run efficiently and at lower cost? Am Trak? No. Public schools? Hell no! Medicare? Yeah right? The government will at a minimum be running this “public option”. It will be a disaster just as every government interference into the market usually is. These people do not think about unintended consequences. They do not think beyond their immediate idealogical pursuits. It is not a slippery slope fallacy, it is recent history. Remember TARP? When has the government followed the letter of its own laws? They will overreach. They will go beyond the bill. They will create a crisis so that they can implement their desired programs. Obama could not articulate his plan at all during his orchestrated press conference the other night. The bill remains murky at best. I am opposed to it on principle, but I am a pragmatist. I want solutions. This is just a partisan game that will only create new and bigger problems.


  • The government will at a minimum be running this “public option”. It will be a disaster just as every government interference into the market usually is.

    SSG, let’s think about the implications of what you just said. The bill will create an exchange, in which various private insurers can compete with each other and with a public option. Keep in mind that most people will stay with their employer-provided private insurance, as the CBO stated in its most recent assessment. So, for those who are left, they will have to choose a plan from the options in the exchange. There will be three standard plans and one “premium-plus” option that is flexible. So, for those choosing among the three standard plans, the only deciding factor will be cost. Do you want to pay more in premiums, or more out-of-pocket?

    Now, back to your statement. If government is running the public option, and government is inefficient and wasteful, then it stands to reason that the public option will be the more expensive option. In other words, no one will want it. So, where’s the problem?


  • SSG, enjoy your vacation. Relaxation is a much more noble pursuit then attempting to reason with the already convinced, particularly when they have a terminal case of last-wordism. Go grill something in the back yard or something. Meat doesn’t have an opinion, it just fries. :)


  • What’s funny and ironic about your viewpoint, LB, is that YOU’RE the one who seems to think he’s always “right”. If others (me) don’t accept your position, as originally stated, they must obviously be “already convinced”, because your argument is perfect.

    I’ve tried stating to you as clearly as I could the problems I had with your argument. I’ve not dismissed your sources with any lame excuses about them being biased or partisan. I only felt that your argument, as presented, was not complete. But no, you can’t handle that. You’d much rather call me names and blame ME for being unconvincable.

    I’ve tried reasoning with you, by stating exactly how I felt your argument was incomplete. Either address it or shut up, but definitely get off of the high horse.


  • You got all that from telling a guy to enjoy his vacation and have a backyard grill out? Jesus you have a pathos.


  • No, I got it from your comment about trying to “reason with the already convinced”.


  • Reasic, do you support the Democrats bill or not? Yes or no?


  • LB, this is not black and white, as much as you’d like it to be, so you can throw me into the category of people who are “already convinced”. Yes, I currently believe that this bill would be better than doing nothing, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be swayed by a particularly convincing argument. The Senate bill, for instance, contains no public option. I’d like to see some numbers run on that bill, to help determine if it’d be more cost effective.

    How about you? Do you support it? Yes or no?


  • Thought I’d share this article:

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Canadian+health+care+hardly+Marxism+threat/1823845/story.html

    The article is about how the Canadian health care system is not the evil Marxist concoction that conservatives here make it out to be. One interesting fact was that half of our bankruptcies in 2001 were due to medical bills. Yet another indication that the current system is broken. A health care system in which almost everyone is covered, and in which out-of-pocket expenses are capped, could’ve prevented many of these.


  • “Yes,”

    Thank you for the one word answer I asked for.

    “Do you support it? Yes or no?”

    No.


  • I don’t want to give you a one word answer, because I don’t want you making the mistake of thinking that it would then mean that I have my mind made up.


  • There’s two differences between you and me. I’ll admit my mind is made up, unlike you who sits back, advances no case in support of the bill, places the burden on the critics of the bill to prove to you it won’t work, and yet daintily step back when challenged and giggle “no,no sir, I insist my mind isn’t made up.”

    The other difference is, I can name a change to the bill that would lead me to drop any opposition to that. Odds are you would never do that with any Republican bill advanced.


  • As a truth-seeking, free-thinking individual, I would like to think that my mind is never fully made up. If new, or more convincing evidence is presented, I would hope that I would be able to swallow my pride and concede. I’m sorry if you think it’s unfair that one Boston Globe article about the shortcomings of the Massachusetts health care system doesn’t convince me that the House bill won’t work. Perhaps more information could help shore up that argument?

    By the way, have you actually admitted that your mind is made up? Have you also named a change to the bill that would lead you to drop your opposition to it?


  • “I’m sorry if you think it’s unfair that one Boston Globe article about the shortcomings of the Massachusetts health care system doesn’t convince me that the House bill won’t work.”

    Oh, if you were so inclined you could have found more sources on that. The fact that you’ve made no such effort leads me to highly doubt that you are “a truth-seeking” individual. Instead, you strike me as a partisan trying to defend a bill which you more or less decided to support the minute it was put out. Again, there are indisputable facts about the amount health insurance costs have risen and the number still uninsured in Massachusetts that you could have sought if truth was your goal. I don’t believe that is your goal and I’m not going to waste my time digging up sources for you that you could just as easily find yourself.

    “By the way, have you actually admitted that your mind is made up?”

    Yeah. At the outset of any discussions on this, I said it was a bad bill.

    “Have you also named a change to the bill that would lead you to drop your opposition to it?”

    I’ve at least alluded to it. Drop the mandate on individuals to carry insurance and my opposition to this bill would go away.


  • Oh, if you were so inclined you could have found more sources on that. The fact that you’ve made no such effort leads me to highly doubt that you are “a truth-seeking” individual.

    Actually, LB, I have looked for, and found, other sources. I shared one with you by the same author of the Boston Globe piece. Remember that?

    Again, there are indisputable facts about the amount health insurance costs have risen and the number still uninsured in Massachusetts that you could have sought if truth was your goal.

    Yes, I’ve provided a study, which quantified the amount that health insurance premiums have risen as a result of the uninsured: $1,000/yr. The author of the Boston Globe article claimed that there are still 200,000 uninsured in Massachusetts, four or five years after the plan took effect. That’s a mere 3% of the population, and it’s down from about 650,000. She makes it seem as though this number didn’t change.

    Drop the mandate on individuals to carry insurance and my opposition to this bill would go away.

    This mandate helps bring down premiums by making those who are currently healthy and able pay premiums as well. It makes the entire pool healthier. Insurance companies game the system by taking your premiums for years and then sticking you with the bill when you get sick. Individuals game the system by waiting until they’re in poor health to get insurance. This bill closes both loopholes.


  • “This mandate helps. . .”

    I don’t give a well-laid rat’s ass if you think it’s a good idea or not. I think it’s a crap idea and would never support any bill that includes it.


  • Now who’s “already convinced”? I didn’t simply express my opinion. I stated the reason why, as well, and rather than address the actual argument, you just stated your opinion and ignored the argument.

    By the way, I found this article from 2006, which states that there are about 200,000 uninsured who are wealthy in Mass.:

    http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_152510.htm

    I wonder if this number largely makes up the uninsured that exist today. If the max penalty for not having insurance is only half of the average premium, then it might still be a bargain to just pay the tax.

    The next article, from the Heritage Foundation no less, actually states that the mandate “may be less problematic than [you] realize”, since a high deductible, catastrophic coverage plan would satisfy the mandate, and the government will subsidize coverage for the poor:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCAre/wm1045.cfm

    You know, you’ve complained that I haven’t put forth an argument in support of this bill, but I haven’t seen your argument about how single payer is better than this plan, either. Your position is that the best option is a single payer system, followed by our current system, with the proposed plan being last, right? How so? Does a single payer system require fewer taxes?


  • “Now who’s “already convinced”?”

    “There’s two differences between you and me. I’ll admit my mind is made up,”

    ““By the way, have you actually admitted that your mind is made up?”

    Yeah. At the outset of any discussions on this, I said it was a bad bill.”

    Retreading old ground is no service to your point.

    “I didn’t simply express my opinion. I stated the reason why, as well, and rather than address the actual argument, you just stated your opinion and ignored the argument.”

    No, I stated my case for it long ago. If you can’t be bothered to go look at them that’s your problem, not mine.

    “but I haven’t seen your argument about how single payer is better than this plan, either.”

    And given what a prick you tend to be about thought out, constructed arguments that disagree with you, you’re not going to see it either.

    “Your position is that the best option is a single payer system, followed by our current system, with the proposed plan being last, right?”

    Yup.

    “How so?”

    Again, I’m not throwing pearls before swine.


  • Retreading old ground is no service to your point.

    The point being made was that you call me “already convinced” was like the pot calling the kettle black. If you have no intention of changing your mind, don’t complain about me.

    No, I stated my case for it long ago. If you can’t be bothered to go look at them that’s your problem, not mine.

    At least tell me where. In this post? The other one we debated in? A previous one with someone else? On a different blog?

    And given what a prick you tend to be about thought out, constructed arguments that disagree with you, you’re not going to see it either.

    It’s not like I completely dismissed your argument. I explained for you how I felt that your argument was incomplete. At that point, you could blow me out of the water by proving me wrong about your argument, you could fill in the holes as asked, or you could cry and whine about it, claiming I’m unfair and biased (or even a prick). You chose the latter.

    Again, I’m not throwing pearls before swine.

    Grow up.


  • “Grow up.”

    Eat shit.


  • lol. wow, this went downhill quickly.

    LB, I’m really sorry that I’ve made you this upset. I would honestly like to resume this discussion with you in some way, if you’re interested, even if it means starting over at square one with a set of debate rules. You are definitely one of the more reasonable voices in this place (at least more so than Teach, Chris, or Don). If you do not, I will understand, and will regrettably cease and desist.


  • Hmm, a rare moment of introspection and contrition on the internet. Very well. And I also extend my apologies. Too much to do at work right now, will see if time affords me the opportunity to construct something for you later.

Categories

Paid Advertisements




Don Stewart - DS Art Visit RangerUp.comKiss My Gumbo Advertise On Hooahwife
Suicide Prevention Lifeline Veterans Press "1"
NationalResourceDirectory.gov

Wednesday Hero

Wednesday Hero was started in 2005 to honor the Men and Women of the United States Military. To let people know who was fighting, and dying, for them.

Wednesday HeroWhat Is Wednesday Hero?

Get A Copy Of The Post

3/5 Darkhorse Memorial