So...what you think about the health care bill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
enjoy the boys, sallylou!
 
Eve said:
Now that's just sad.

When I said "you", it was meant as a singular toward sallylou, not plural toward you or anyone else.

Yes, there has been mention that you could possibly be perceived as her "lap dog". I don't know you well enough to make that deduction, myself.
Click to expand...

let's not lie in here :)

you know well enough about me to make deduction since you included me along with these crowd about darkdog.

boom.... goes your credibility. :wave:
 
Jiro, the comment against darkdog was made by sallylou, and she alone. I do lump you in with the likes of jillio, sallylou, et. al. when you make blanket statements, resort to petty name-calling, and say anything to avoid publishing facts to support your cause.
 
souggy said:
Not sad. He's just playing the Devil's advocate.

There are many conservatives here that are on ADers, but they're well-liked because they can play the Devil's advocates. As soon there's a void missing, another conservative will pop in to fill in that void.

ie. When debating about gun rights, no one else posted-- so Jiro filled in that void.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess agreeing to go along with the health care bill disaster is worth a few trillion dollars more on spending money we don't have and don't mind a little statism at work arresting those who refuse to participate into buying health insurance. Just playing my "devil's advocate" here.
 
There's a difference between being a Devil's advocate and standing up for what you believe in.

I defended Bush's actions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan many time, even though I disagreed with what I was saying. Why? It was a one-sided argument, and those ones are boring.

Someone who is a Devil's advocate can see the other side of the debate, and bring balance to the debate despite that they agree with the other side rather than the side they are defending.
 
:roll: ..can we argue about the bill instead of about who is someone's lapdog or whatever?
 
Didn't know that was even an argument.
 
Eve said:
Jiro, the comment against darkdog was made by sallylou, and she alone. I do lump you in with the likes of jillio, sallylou, et. al. when you make blanket statements, resort to petty name-calling, and say anything to avoid publishing facts to support your cause.
Click to expand...

Backpedaling, I see. let's not resort to personal attack.
 
Eve said:
I am sure that if he had any intentions of getting a job with benefits, he would have already done so...
Click to expand...
What an absolutely arrogant statement! I looked for nearly a year to find work, and there are many others that have looked longer. Just because this recession has skipped over you does not mean people are not suffering. To suggest that he "does not have the intentions of finding a job with benefits" shows how deluded your world has become. Get down on your knees and thank your God if you are working full time. I would welcome Socialism just to put you in your place. Please put me on your ignore list, as I add you now. Much easier to keep my blood pressure in check by ignoring the ignorant posts being made by the self proclaimed "Goddess" You have chosen your name well. Please sprinkle fairy dust over us all, so we may prove our worthiness to share the oxygen with you.
 
sallylou said:
darkdog, I don't think that you understand that function on the graph. It's a ratio. Profits are simply gross income - expenses. So simple a cave man can understand it. Using this generally accepted accounting principle, the profit is 2-10% (which is 10 times what the insurance companies claim).
Click to expand...
sallylou, I don't think you understand that function on the graph. It's a ratio of dollars spent on medical treatment to dollars taken in from premiums. You originally said, "Spending more on administration than actual health care is crazy!" For that to be true, the ratio would have to be well under 50%. At no time does it get anywhere close to 50%.

There's nothing wrong with initially misunderstanding something like this. After all, this isn't exactly the clearest statement in the world: "In fact, an examination of insurers’ medical loss ratio — the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premiums that goes to pay for medical services– suggests that within the last 10 years, insurers have been spending less on medical care and more on administrative costs or profits." Less compared to what? More compared to what? On a quick reading, it isn't initially clear that it means compared to what it used to be in the past.
 
souggy said:
There's a difference between being a Devil's advocate and standing up for what you believe in.

I defended Bush's actions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan many time, even though I disagreed with what I was saying. Why? It was a one-sided argument, and those ones are boring.

Someone who is a Devil's advocate can see the other side of the debate, and bring balance to the debate despite that they agree with the other side rather than the side they are defending.
Click to expand...

If we *had* the money I'd agree with the other side on how some of the insurance questions could be approached. But since we don't have the money and seeing that states are going bankrupt with NY next by the end of this year that puts it into a whole different light. I also question seriously the sanity of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Congress in putting a bunch of gobblygook together in a nearly 2000 pages worth of a bill that's designed to arrest and/or fine heavily people for not *choosing* to buy health insurance on their own. That's statism at it's best. Rather than really fix the problem at the source, Congress and their bunch of idiots choose to bankrupt the health system that will ultimately end up going no where but down.
 
shel90 said:
It is either free health care or people continue to go without health care. I would rather have free health care even if it has flaws. Even the health care we have now has its flaws.
Click to expand...

Agreed though I must say that free healthcare isn't really free for taxpayers must pay for it.
 
The issue for some employers that don't offers health insurance to employees or very expensive insurance like $1,050 per month for family of four so this issue need be seriously addressed, also offers $150 per month for single who paid at minimum wage is so expensive but some of coverage will not guaranteed to be covered so that why health care reform is needed, regardless if include public options or not.

There's most on my priority list is ban on pre-existing condition, cap on out of pocket pays, ban on cancellation of coverage, except for fraud and ban on deny of insurance that based on age, gender and medical history, that all need be fixed and make sure many uninsured to be covered, I don't know if I'm strongly support public options but free market health care will be great and work if heavily regulated to counter the insurance companies to being greedy and abuse on patients, even I know some people got coverage canceled after diagnosed with cancer, heart attack, kidney failure, etc and been on insurance for very long time before it happens, that pissed me off.

Canada and many developed countries are already achieved the universal health care, I'm NOT talking about free health care because I already know that funded by government and taxpayers so not guaranteed if not good as private health care does, it is about anyone can access to health care.
 
If health care reform bill with public options can't pass in congress so just take public options out and rather to expanding the strict regulation for private health insurance, such as ban on pre-existing condition and if could attract to moderate and conservative voters.

I don't support mandatory insurance coverage as always but damned about house include it and passed so got no choice due combined of them.
 
saywhatkid said:
What an absolutely arrogant statement! I looked for nearly a year to find work, and there are many others that have looked longer. Just because this recession has skipped over you does not mean people are not suffering. To suggest that he "does not have the intentions of finding a job with benefits" shows how deluded your world has become. Get down on your knees and thank your God if you are working full time. I would welcome Socialism just to put you in your place. Please put me on your ignore list, as I add you now. Much easier to keep my blood pressure in check by ignoring the ignorant posts being made by the self proclaimed "Goddess" You have chosen your name well. Please sprinkle fairy dust over us all, so we may prove our worthiness to share the oxygen with you.
Click to expand...

Not arrogant, just factual. I am sure it isn't easy to obtain a job while unemployment is at its highest in decades under this administration. The recession hasn't skipped over anyone....except the politicians. Socialism won't fix that here anymore than it fixed it in the USSR.
 
I haven't been keeping up with the news lately, but it looks like this bill will pass in the Senate. I am sure the insurance lobby are miffed at Obama for personally coaxing congressmen to vote for the bill. After all, THEY own them. lol
 
I just wish the American taxpayers owned them for a change.
 
Eve said:
Not arrogant, just factual. I am sure it isn't easy to obtain a job while unemployment is at its highest in decades under this administration. The recession hasn't skipped over anyone....except the politicians. Socialism won't fix that here anymore than it fixed it in the USSR.
Click to expand...
j

You do realize the Germans were the first country to have social insurance... and they haven';t fallen apart yet. Obamacare is most similar to the Germans.

The healthcare offered in the USSR is not the same at all. Beside, why are you using a dictatorship-form of government? Pick a democratic socialist country like Denmark, Sweden... (And by the way, Canadians don't consider themselves as socialists.)
 
souggy said:
j

You do realize the Germans were the first country to have social insurance... and they haven';t fallen apart yet. Obamacare is most similar to the Germans.

The healthcare offered in the USSR is not the same at all. Beside, why are you using a dictatorship-form of government? Pick a democratic socialist country like Denmark, Sweden... (And by the way, Canadians don't consider themselves as socialists.)
Click to expand...

I see her quote...grrrrrrrrr. Like telling me I was just pretending to send my resume to dozens of employers, and getting no replies. Not like my writing is awful, either. We jobless folks are just bums. "Please give me Lysol and aftershave to drink; I cannot afford Thunderbird."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top