The NHS & the United States of America

[TallGuyLittleCar]

I've said it before... pull a Bush move.

Make the bill, shove it through Congress and then seek approval after the fact. Label it "it helps against terror" and people will rush to support it.

If we were facing an onset of plague that would work.

[gerbick]

If we were facing an onset of plague that would work.

Pandemic of H1N1... hmm. See the possibility?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

So then.. are you one of those people that believes the obama administration is letting people not wash their hands as often.. or one of those people that believes the obama administration is making people not wash their hands as often.

*affixes tinfoil face mask*

[gerbick]

No.

Yes.

[FlashLackey]

What are your criticisms of obamas plan.

In no particular order of importance:

It raises our health care costs when we already are on track to bankrupt our existing health care entitlement programs.

Those additional costs will inevitably affect all of us in one way or another, either via taxes, inflation, increased cost of goods and services or loss of jobs.

It will create massive new government bureaucracies, which have consistently been prone to inefficiency and political corruption.

There is no measure in place to enforce whether or not beneficiaries are legal citizens.

There is no measure in place to prohibit federal funding of abortions.

It will cause many people to lose their current private insurance provided via employer.

It doesn't cover everyone. There will still be millions of uninsured.

It will most likely increase prices and/or availability of private insurance due to costs associated with new compliance requirements.

It creates a stepping stone toward a single payer system which has a whole slew of additional problems.

It cuts medicare programs that elderly people currently choose to use and benefit from.

There is nothing there to control excessive law suits.

There is nothing there to encourage competition between private companies (as cross-border competition would do).

The problems cited are addressable through more direct means than a major over-haul.

It will be regressive health care. Similar to the way public versus private school works. The masses get the second rate quality and the privileged get the private, high quality stuff (like Obama's kids).

Would hurt businesses that don't provide private health insurance with a new tax.

...

Let me know if you need more.

I'm actually curious what your issues with it are, but you seem to spend so much time building up walls around problems that you wont discuss that none of us have a ****ing clue what the **** you are talking about. all you do is post giant walls of text replies which to be honest im not reading because its all replies to **** i don't care about.

Interesting. I thought that text replies were the standard form of communication on internet forums.

Excuse me for responding to people saying things that you don't care about. Take it up with them if you really feel that strongly about it.

Sorry that you have no clue what I'm talking about. Let me know what your questions are and I'll try to help you out.

I will quote you on this one ....prove it.

No problem.

I've said it before... pull a Bush move.

Make the bill, shove it through Congress and then seek approval after the fact.

He undoubtedly would do that if he could. The problem there is that many Democratic leaders have constituents that don't want the plan. So, they are resisting the plan to prevent from being voted out.

if bush was proposing the same exact bill would you feel the same way?

Absolutely.

[joshstrike]

Which we could fix with legislation allowing cross-state competition, removing employer health insurance subsidies and tort reform. Universal coverage could be accomplished by a simple voucher system.

Whoa!!! That's crazy. Tort reform would cut costs to the insurance companies alright, but what incentive would they have to pass the savings along to the patient / consumer? And tort reform... I'm sorry, but I really don't get how any conservative can be in favor of tort reform... I realize it would ease the burden on the courts and save doctors money on their insurance premiums. But do you really want to live in a country where a doctor can't be sued with punitive damages for taking off your leg when you went in for an appendectomy? Or where a drunk driver can't be sued, with punitive damages, for running over your kid? Or where a fast food chain can't be punished for sickening a thousand people, at least no more than for the value of their lost wages?

The only thing that holds this society of ours together is the fear of the lawsuit. If we'd had tort reform 30 years ago, McDonald's wouldn't bother to irradiate their beef patties; it would be cheaper to buy ads if something went wrong. There would be no safety caps on bottles of aspirin. The Ford Pinto would still be on the market, along with melmac. Ceiling tiles would still be made out of asbestos. You'd still be able to walk into a shoe store and look at the bones in your feet through an X-ray machine. I could name a dozen other deadly products off the top of my head that would still be on the market if their makers hadn't been sued and harshly penalized by private individuals and classes who were injured or killed. A corporation ghas no vested interest, other than public relations, to make its product safe; and there is no question that public image can be manipulated in our society to a great extent for much less money than those corporations would lose by pulling such products off the market. Those among us who are art directors should know this; we manipulate public perception for a living.

The threat of being sued is all that keeps us safe. And the idea that health insurance companies, which insure their own doctors against malpractice, would then pass the savings along to the consumer in the form of cheaper premiums is ludicrous.

[gerbick]

Is it wrong that I wish harm upon people so they can test the healthcare system?

[joshstrike]

uh, btw FlashLackey -- this recent business is my first encounter with major medical expenses here. And I didn't take an ambulance, so there was no $200 ambulance fee. I can scan the $6000 in bills, including the $1900 from the ER at St. John's, if it would prove anything...and the $2000 from Cedars-Sinai, who are still calling me to collect, and the $2000 from the surgical center, and the $300 from the anaesthesiologist who the insurance company wouldn't cover. I have a blue cross individual policy which costs about $200 a month... not chump change in a town where the rent is $1200 and a pack of smokes (oops, they don't know about that) is almost $7.

*sigh*. I'd be overjoyed if my taxes paid for it. I coughed up $20k this year for social security that will be bankrupt before I turn 40.

And gerbick... just... get out of the country. Now.

[FlashLackey]

Whoa!!! That's crazy. Tort reform would cut costs to the insurance companies alright, but what incentive would they have to pass the savings along to the patient / consumer? And tort reform... I'm sorry, but I really don't get how any conservative can be in favor of tort reform... I realize it would ease the burden on the courts and save doctors money on their insurance premiums. But do you really want to live in a country where a doctor can't be sued with punitive damages for taking off your leg when you went in for an appendectomy? Or where a drunk driver can't be sued, with punitive damages, for running over your kid? Or where a fast food chain can't be punished for sickening a thousand people, at least no more than for the value of their lost wages?

Who said anything about limiting awards all the way down to only cover lost wages? Every plan for tort reform that I've seen would still allow a person to sue for substantial amounts for everything you listed.

Making a mistake should cost a doctor substantially. But, amounts that end their career and potentially bankrupt entire insurance companies has resulted in a myriad of negative consequences for consumers. Higher costs of medical care due to high liability premiums. Defensive medicine that is not in the interest of the patient, in order to limit doctors liability. Less availability of care in some areas where it is more expensive for doctors to work, driving them to other states.

Additionally, a large percentage of these awards doesn't even go to the victim. The lawyers take it.

The only thing that holds this society of ours together is the fear of the lawsuit. If we'd had tort reform 30 years ago, McDonald's wouldn't bother to irradiate their beef patties; it would be cheaper to buy ads if something went wrong. There would be no safety caps on bottles of aspirin. The Ford Pinto would still be on the market, along with melmac. Ceiling tiles would still be made out of asbestos. You'd still be able to walk into a shoe store and look at the bones in your feet through an X-ray machine. I could name a dozen other deadly products off the top of my head that would still be on the market if their makers hadn't been sued and harshly penalized by private individuals and classes who were injured or killed. A corporation ghas no vested interest, other than public relations, to make its product safe; and there is no question that public image can be manipulated in our society to a great extent for much less money than those corporations would lose by pulling such products off the market. Those among us who are art directors should know this; we manipulate public perception for a living.

A corporation absolutely has a vested interest in not making dangerous products: sales. Your assertion that any of those products would still be on the shelves because damage awards weren't high enough is absurd. The incidents would make head-line news, nobody would buy them any more and the company would stop selling them.

Corporations don't avoid dangerous products because they are afraid of big law suits. For one, they are probably less sinister than you would seem to believe and genuinely care about their customers. But, they are also strongly motivated to avoid damaging sales.

The threat of being sued is all that keeps us safe. And the idea that health insurance companies, which insure their own doctors against malpractice, would then pass the savings along to the consumer in the form of cheaper premiums is ludicrous.

I believe that doctors usually pay for their own liability insurance. But, in either case, the same principle applies. They could choose to not pass those savings on to cheaper prices. However, they would then lose business to those that do.

Is it wrong that I wish harm upon people so they can test the healthcare system?

Yes

[FlashLackey]

uh, btw FlashLackey -- this recent business is my first encounter with major medical expenses here. And I didn't take an ambulance, so there was no $200 ambulance fee. I can scan the $6000 in bills, including the $1900 from the ER at St. John's, if it would prove anything...and the $2000 from Cedars-Sinai, who are still calling me to collect, and the $2000 from the surgical center, and the $300 from the anaesthesiologist who the insurance company wouldn't cover. I have a blue cross individual policy which costs about $200 a month... not chump change in a town where the rent is $1200 and a pack of smokes (oops, they don't know about that) is almost $7.

That wouldn't really prove that you had coverage at the time or how much of those bills your policy reimbursed.

And again, you're giving me more reason to believe we're not getting the entire story. I lived in LA for ten years and had a Blue Cross policy myself. So, I'm familiar with their terms.

Was it really that you were just surprised that you had to meet your deductable?

[joshstrike]

And again, you're giving me more reason to believe we're not getting the entire story (...) Was it really that you were just surprised that you had to meet your deductable?

Yeah, I was damn surprised. I was surprised that St. John's charged me $1900 for an x-ray and a prescription for antibiotics at 3am. I used to live in San Francisco, and went to the general hospital up the hill once when I had an infection, and only recall being charged a few hundred bucks for the ER visit. If I'd thought it was going to cost me that much, I wouldn't have gone to the ER, I would have waited until morning.

But that aside, you said...

A corporation absolutely has a vested interest in not making dangerous products: sales. Your assertion that any of those products would still be on the shelves because damage awards weren't high enough is absurd. The incidents would make head-line news, nobody would buy them any more and the company would stop selling them.

Please explain then why the federal government finds tobacco companies' marketing to be so dangerous to our educated citizenry, 40-50 years after the revelation that cigarettes cause cancer, that they find it necessary to strip RJR's first amendment right to advertise on billboards; and how in this regulatory climate, said tobacco companies continue to make enormous profits. As a smoker, I'd submit that sales of an addictive or alluring product, however dangerous it is, are still a worthwhile revenue stream for a corporation who have excellent marketing, even after that product kills millions of people. Absurd indeed!

[FlashLackey]

I think that cigarettes are an unusual case for the reasons you allude to. People know they are damaging but smoke them anyway. That's different than most other products. For instance, people wouldn't prefer asbestos ceiling panels because they are relaxing and make them look cool.

[silverx2]

There is no measure in place to enforce whether or not beneficiaries are legal citizens.

The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246) titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it’s worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you’re not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it’s considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president’s statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.

So if an illegal alien tries to get health care via lying about his citizenship they can find out about it and deport them. There is no better way to catch someone then to have them come to you, Thats why law enforcement often send people with warrents vouchers that they won something(boat, car vacation, preteen girls they were chatting to on the internet) and when they come to pick up their prize they get arrested

There is no measure in place to prohibit federal funding of abortions.

The truth of that depends on what is meant by “federal dollars.” Actually, as we’ve written before, under Democratic legislation now before Congress, the “public option” would cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother and could cover all abortions if the administration chooses, and as Obama once promised. Private insurance plans purchased with the help of federal subsidies to low- and moderate-income workers also could cover all abortions, as many, if not most, private plans do today.
Under an amendment adopted by a House committee, abortions would be paid for by the "public option" only with money collected from policyholders in the form of premiums, not with money collected from taxpayers. But is money collected by the government and paid out to abortion providers by the government “federal dollars"? The anti-abortion side says yes. And the same goes for federal subsidies given to low- and moderate-income persons to help them buy insurance. If they use those dollars to buy private policies that cover all abortions, does that mean “federal dollars” go to fund abortions? Again, abortion foes say yes.
The advocates of abortion rights argue otherwise. They say the House bill would be an extension of longstanding policy under the Hyde amendment, which forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life, but also allows states to use their own Medicaid money to fund other abortions (and 17 of them do). In any case, the matter is not so simple or clear as the president would like it to seem.


People use foodstamps to buy lottery tickets, drugs, booze. how is this any different?

It will cause many people to lose their current private insurance provided via employer.

It’s true that no Democratic legislation would “require” workers or employers to change coverage, though some existing plans may have to be upgraded to meet new federal minimum standards if, for example, they fail to cover preventative screenings.
Obama has become more cautious in his wording since an Aug. 15 appearance when he said "if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan." That won’t always be true. In fact, as we noted at the time, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan. The CBO estimated that 3 million who now have employer-provided coverage would lose it under the House bill, as their employers find that paying the penalty is cheaper than providing coverage. The CBO also said these employers would likely have lower-wage employees eligible for federal subsidies to help them purchase insurance.

That last part makes it sound like, as least to me that it would benefit the people that are currently paying to much(for what they can afford to spend) for health insurance. Again its for the greater good

It doesn't cover everyone. There will still be millions of uninsured.

“Citizens” is the operative word here. And even so, the 30 million figure is an understatement. The official Census figure for 2007 was actually 45.7 million persons in the U.S., but that figure includes an estimated 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, including 5.6 million who are here illegally, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. That still leaves about 35.7 million U.S. citizens without health coverage in 2007, well above the president’s figure. And hours after the president spoke, Census released new figures for 2008, showing the total number of uninsured went up slightly, to 46.3 million.

You say millions will be uninsured(we wont know till it happens) but currently tens of millions Cant get insurance.

There is nothing there to control excessive law suits.

Obama mentioned fixing malpractice lawsuits so that doctors can worry more about helping people, and less about getting sued for it. is that what you are referring to?

There is nothing there to encourage competition between private companies (as cross-border competition would do).

Wouldn't having all of the insurance companies competing against each other for the business for millions of new plans cause competition?

Would hurt businesses that don't provide private health insurance with a new tax.

If its a brand new business it is going to have a net profit well under the $400k which means it will get tax breaks to assist with with offering health insurance.


Those are direct responses from the website i listed on the last page, in regards to topics that you listed that they covered.

[gerbick]

Yes

That was rhetorical.

[Loyal Rogue]

Do you see the irony of this statement?
...
It would be a waste of time to explain how I feel to someone who is pre-determined to reach one conclusion.

Considering the source, the irony of these statements is almost too much to handle.

By your own admission you just informed us that to try and explain anything to you at all is nothing more than a waste of time. Bravo.

Another curious point about his plan. He tried to rush the bill through and constantly says that this is an emergency. Yet, his proposal doesn't kick in until after the next election. Just something to mull over a little.

It is an emergency, but he (and you) know that in the modern American political arena nothing gets done during an election year except backbiting and posturing even more than non-election years.
All the political analysts have been saying since he got elected that any legislation he wants passed will have to be done before the next election year.

You admit in this same post that Obama is lying about the cost issue. So, isn't it then valid for those who are concerned about the economy to criticize the plan on this point?

Absolutely, just like it's valid for the morbidly obese person in line at McDonalds ordering the 3 Big Macs and Super-sized fries to be concerned about how many calories are in the Diet soda.

Considering most of those same "concerned" citizens are the same ones that didn't voice one objection to borrowing and spending trillions on an unnecessary and unlawful war... the word "hypocrisy" leaps to mind.
It's another amazingly ironic thing that the "pro-life" crowd doesn't mind spending any obscene amount of money to kill people and blow things up, but try and spend some money on saving lives or helping the poor and they start foaming at the mouth.

This reform plan is not intended to fix our problem. It's intended to gain ground toward the single payer system that the left wants.

You just contradicted yourself.

Thus, it is valid for critics to argue against features of single payer systems, even if they aren't part of this initial stepping-stone reform.

Then by your reasoning it's perfectly valid to argue against any form of organized religion, churches, bibles, etc. because they could possibly be a stepping stone to a future crusade, jihad, or theocracy.

Take a step back from yourself for a moment and listen to how that sounds. Do you think you are more intelligent than every one of those people?

Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
Because you are more informed about a particular sports team do you think that makes you more intelligent than someone who doesn't have the same passion or interest in that sport?

Perhaps they disagree that the issue has been debunked and have a different perspective than you. If they had the privilege of being able to represent themselves here, do you think they would agree with your condescending characterization of them?

There are people who believe the earth is flat and disagree that has been debunked as well. Do you think those people would agree with your condescending characterization that they are wrong?

When someone repeats a false talking point from a chain letter or a teabagger sign such as "death panels" or "illegal immigrants" as the reason they oppose healthcare reform then they are basing their argument on wrong information. Do you agree that there are facts and there are falsehoods?

As the old saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.", or my personal favorite, especially in light of the recent rightwing demonstration photos, "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

The evidence shows that those systems do not run more effectively than ours. But, you're right that they are cheaper. When it comes to health, I believe that it's worth a higher cost to maintain higher quality.

I'm sorry but the facts disagree with you on that.
The evidence shows that they do run more efficiently and more effectively than ours... unless your meaning of "higher quality" means greater infant mortality, shorter lifespan, less medical coverage, and ranking 37th from the top.

Prove it.

You can have a growing economy on the back of slave labor, forced abortions, worker abuses, child prostitution, exploitation of the poor just as Tom Delay's "shining example" of the republican ideology in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Economic indicators are not indicators of how well average citizens are doing or of equality.

FL and LR walk into a bar... (sorry but the punchline is gonna suck)
Between FL, LR and the barmaid, the average annual income is $75k/yr.
All of a sudden Bill Gates walks into the bar.
The average annual income of everyone in the bar has just gone up by several billion dollars... however, this is not an indicator of whether the barmaid will be able to buy groceries for her family this month or not.

That would be unfortunate if that were the case. Fortunately, we track these things and can know that more people move from the lower 20% to the upper 20% in income during their lifetimes than those that don't.

That is a meaningless statistic.

[Frets]

Here is some interesting reading

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.


"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard,

[FlashLackey]

So if an illegal alien tries to get health care via lying about his citizenship they can find out about it and deport them. There is no better way to catch someone then to have them come to you, Thats why law enforcement often send people with warrents vouchers that they won something(boat, car vacation, preteen girls they were chatting to on the internet) and when they come to pick up their prize they get arrested

We aren't even deporting illegals who are arrested for crimes. What makes you think that any large number of people would be deported if it is later found out that they accepted federally funded health care? Also note that Sec. 246 refers to only one subtitle of the bill rather than the entire thing.

The truth of that depends on what is meant by “federal dollars.” Actually, as we’ve written before, under Democratic legislation now before Congress, the “public option” would cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother and could cover all abortions if the administration chooses, and as Obama once promised. Private insurance plans purchased with the help of federal subsidies to low- and moderate-income workers also could cover all abortions, as many, if not most, private plans do today.
Under an amendment adopted by a House committee, abortions would be paid for by the "public option" only with money collected from policyholders in the form of premiums, not with money collected from taxpayers. But is money collected by the government and paid out to abortion providers by the government “federal dollars"? The anti-abortion side says yes. And the same goes for federal subsidies given to low- and moderate-income persons to help them buy insurance. If they use those dollars to buy private policies that cover all abortions, does that mean “federal dollars” go to fund abortions? Again, abortion foes say yes.
The advocates of abortion rights argue otherwise. They say the House bill would be an extension of longstanding policy under the Hyde amendment, which forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life, but also allows states to use their own Medicaid money to fund other abortions (and 17 of them do). In any case, the matter is not so simple or clear as the president would like it to seem.

People use foodstamps to buy lottery tickets, drugs, booze. how is this any different?

Not legally they don't. But, the idea isn't much different as your quote confirms. There are ways to work around the system to use money it collects for things that it doesn't explicitly endorse.

That last part makes it sound like, as least to me that it would benefit the people that are currently paying to much(for what they can afford to spend) for health insurance. Again its for the greater good

That might be true if the government didn't already subsidize health care costs through employers. In those cases that you bolded, those employees would be losing a policy that the government is already subsidizing a large portion of to be replaced by the public option that they have to pay for in full (but also partly subsidized). Considering that the vast majority of people are happy with their current plans, why put all these people in the position of changing to something for roughly the same price?

“Citizens” is the operative word here. And even so, the 30 million figure is an understatement. The official Census figure for 2007 was actually 45.7 million persons in the U.S., but that figure includes an estimated 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, including 5.6 million who are here illegally, according to the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. That still leaves about 35.7 million U.S. citizens without health coverage in 2007, well above the president’s figure. And hours after the president spoke, Census released new figures for 2008, showing the total number of uninsured went up slightly, to 46.3 million.

You say millions will be uninsured(we wont know till it happens) but currently tens of millions Cant get insurance.

According to this, there would still be 19.5 million people without insurance: http://www.lewin.com/content/publica...n%20Report.pdf

And it's not tens of millions that can't get insurance. Nearly half of the 30 or so million without insurance (that aren't illegal or visiting from another country) have the means to pay for a policy but choose not to or are already eligible for public assistance.

Obama mentioned fixing malpractice lawsuits so that doctors can worry more about helping people, and less about getting sued for it. is that what you are referring to?

Yes. He did mention that. But, nothing about it has been added to the bill or even specified.

Wouldn't having all of the insurance companies competing against each other for the business for millions of new plans cause competition?

Yes. It would. But, that's not what is happening now and it's not what would happen under Obama's plan.

If its a brand new business it is going to have a net profit well under the $400k which means it will get tax breaks to assist with with offering health insurance.

That's great for start-ups. However, corporations that earn over $400k make up a very large part of our economy. They create many jobs, salaries, products and retirement investments for average Americans. So, their costs impact average Americans.

Those are direct responses from the website i listed on the last page, in regards to topics that you listed that they covered.

I appreciate you posting them here. I don't believe any of them demonstrates my statements to be untrue.

[FlashLackey]

By your own admission you just informed us that to try and explain anything to you at all is nothing more than a waste of time. Bravo.

Not at all. I've been asking you to provide convincing facts that support your position. If you can, I will change my position. You have not done so to this date.

It is an emergency, but he (and you) know that in the modern American political arena nothing gets done during an election year except backbiting and posturing even more than non-election years.
All the political analysts have been saying since he got elected that any legislation he wants passed will have to be done before the next election year.

The next presidential election is in 2012. It's not even 2010 yet. If it can wait for over two years to even start, we can spend a little more time ironing it out. If it is a vital emergency for our country, we can plan for it to begin before 2012.

I don't think it takes a "political analyst" (ie. Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo) to recognize the "advantage" of passing massive reforms but not having them go into effect until after your re-election campaign.

Considering most of those same "concerned" citizens are the same ones that didn't voice one objection to borrowing and spending trillions on an unnecessary and unlawful war... the word "hypocrisy" leaps to mind.
It's another amazingly ironic thing that the "pro-life" crowd doesn't mind spending any obscene amount of money to kill people and blow things up, but try and spend some money on saving lives or helping the poor and they start foaming at the mouth.

Religious organizations have donated quite a bit of time and money to charitable efforts to help the poor. So, I don't think you really have grounds to criticize them on that basis.

Assuming that you are referring to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't believe that the mission was to kill people and blow things up. And I'm pretty sure that both operations saved lives that would have been lost at the hands of Saddam's regime and the Taliban. Not to mention preventing potential terrorist operations that could have been planned and carried out from Afghanistan as 9/11 was.

You just contradicted yourself.

Heh. You can't help but acknowledge that I'm right about this. Single payer is the goal. Obamacare is only the first step. Thus, all this hysteria over opponents "incorrectly" criticizing single payer is a bunch of bs, isn't it?

Then by your reasoning it's perfectly valid to argue against any form of organized religion, churches, bibles, etc. because they could possibly be a stepping stone to a future crusade, jihad, or theocracy.

No. Because the vast majority of religious people here are content with the form of their religion now, without crusades, jihads or theocracies. Obama's plan is just a step for the left and you know it. After all these years of quality bickering, you at least owe me some honesty here.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
Because you are more informed about a particular sports team do you think that makes you more intelligent than someone who doesn't have the same passion or interest in that sport?

Well. That depends on what sport and team you are talking about. For instance, someone taking up that Notre Dame should be in the national title game discussion...

There are people who believe the earth is flat and disagree that has been debunked as well. Do you think those people would agree with your condescending characterization that they are wrong?

It's not condescending to take the opposite position. It is condescending to characterize their reason as being lies and suggest that they lack the intellectual curiosity to learn the facts.

When someone repeats a false talking point from a chain letter or a teabagger sign such as "death panels" or "illegal immigrants" as the reason they oppose healthcare reform then they are basing their argument on wrong information. Do you agree that there are facts and there are falsehoods?

Do you agree that what you think is wrong isn't always what other people think is wrong? Do you agree that sometimes others might be right and you might be wrong about something?

In fact, "illegal immigrants" is a great example. You may think of that as a wildly insane thing to criticize the bill over. But, in this country, we aren't even deporting illegals who commit crimes. So, to many, it seems quite reasonable to take issue with Obama's plan, knowing that many illegals will most likely get away with funds from it without consequence.

I'm sorry but the facts disagree with you on that.
The evidence shows that they do run more efficiently and more effectively than ours... unless your meaning of "higher quality" means greater infant mortality, shorter lifespan, less medical coverage, and ranking 37th from the top.

We've already been over this. Infant mortality is a flawed way to compare quality because it isn't measured the same between countries and there are many outside factors that influence outcomes. Lifespans in the US, adjusting for fatal accidents that are not health care related, are amongst the highest in the world. We could improve coverage in many ways. Obama's plan would leave nearly 20 million still without insurance.

You can have a growing economy on the back of slave labor, forced abortions, worker abuses, child prostitution, exploitation of the poor just as Tom Delay's "shining example" of the republican ideology in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Economic indicators are not indicators of how well average citizens are doing or of equality.

Did you intend this to be proof that good economic mobility does not render income gap arguments fundamentally flawed?

FL and LR walk into a bar... (sorry but the punchline is gonna suck)
Between FL, LR and the barmaid, the average annual income is $75k/yr.
All of a sudden Bill Gates walks into the bar.
The average annual income of everyone in the bar has just gone up by several billion dollars... however, this is not an indicator of whether the barmaid will be able to buy groceries for her family this month or not.

Who averaged anything? Given that most people move from under 20% to above 80% in their life-times. If the 20% line is $20k and the 80% is $100k, that is better for more people than if the gap were smaller and the 20% line was $20k and the 80% line was $50k.

That is a meaningless statistic.

On the contrary. It means that the screenshot gap between the 20% line and the 80% line is how much more most people tend to make once they enter their careers.

[Jujumon]

In fact, "illegal immigrants" is a great example. You may think of that as a wildly insane thing to criticize the bill over. But, in this country, we aren't even deporting illegals who commit crimes.

In the US you dont deport illegal immigrants after they were arrested and served their sentence? why is that?

[FlashLackey]

I've answered many of your questions. Here's my challenge.

This, I believe, is a very good article on this subject. So good that I will post most of it. Without attacking the messenger, what is your counter-argument?

You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He ... well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Charl..._he_lie?page=2