Community > Posts By > raiderfan_32
If everyone thinks this public option is such a wonderful idea, let's try it out.
The single biggest employer in the US is her government. By and large there are many private health care plans available to them. Let's run a pilot program and put all those people through the "exchange" and put them on the public option. As the Federal Gov'd CEO, Obama can do this without the need of Congressional Legislation, only with the stroke of a pen. So let's see just how well the Public Option is supposed to work. |
|
|
|
I rather doubt many here would even acknowledge that the Republicans have been out and out lying about this health care plan, much less care that the lies continue even after they have been debunked. They never cared about Bush's lies, and for this president they actually help to spread the lies. People are using their anger about everything under the sun against this plan. Forget the fact that people are just out and out selfish. All I ever hear in here is whining about people getting a hand out. Take care of your own family members bla bla bla, doesn't matter that many old people have no family to speak of or who care to take them in an care for them. I'd like to see the whiners in here go tell those old people to their faces that they don't feel obligated to help. Oh never mind, please do me a favor and don't post that you would be happy with that assignment. And who said start a charity? That's the perfect way to get out of helping anyone. Let the suckers and bleeding hearts donate, like that would cover the cost. Forget accusing Obama of wanting to kill old people, sh$t you have the people themselves that would much rather kill them off along with anyone who happens to be sick or even down on their luck. I am not rich and never have been but I am damn lucky that I am not in their shoes, though hell I might be one day and never expect it. It still blows me away to find out how really really self centered and selfish people really are. I take good care of myself and I don't eat junk at all. I get plenty of exercises, in fact at 60 I can still work rings around people half my age. But that doesn't get me off the hook. Anything can happen and any one of us could find ourselves in trouble. There's a young man down the road that has been studying to be a veterinarian. He was in great health, ate good, exercised 3 days a week and spent most of his free time studying. He collapsed one day, something happened in his brain. He might bring a dog to the vet in the future, but he won't be the vet. He will be on disability the rest of his life. Anyone want to go tell him he's a waste of time and effort and he should die because his parents can't afford to care for him financially? What sickens me most is that a good number of these republicans are so called christians. Oh and by the way that goes for the leaders on the left as well that would prefer to lie about this plan. there's 300 million people in this country...and...288 million have healthcare that they like and want...so...you and Obama and ALL the DemocRATS...want to take away...from all those happy Americans...their healthcare...change it to a Government run plan...because of 12 million Americans...that just can't afford there own healthcare ?...I don't think so !...and neither do 85% of Americans... ![]() Not true. Nice try though. not true ?...what do you have a problem with...it's already been proven that 47 million is counting 20 million illegal aliens...another 8 million make $75,000 a year...but choose NOT to insure themselves...another 7 million or so...are kids...18-21...that feel like its a waste of money at there young age... About 9.7 million of the uninsured are immigrants, both legal and illegal. The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation estimates that 5.6 million of these are undocumented, but there are no hard data on that – NIHCM stresses that "the CPS does not collect information on legal status among non-citizens." Immigrants, especially new immigrants, are more likely to be uninsured than citizens. They are also less likely than citizens to use expensive emergency care, according to research from the Kaiser Family Foundation. "even those who can afford coverage cannot always get it. AHIP found that 72 percent of 2006 applications for health insurance were eventually approved, while the rest were withdrawn, not processed, or denied for medical or non-medical reasons. And of those who got coverage, 11 percent had to pay a higher rate than requested." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/ The illegals are not being counted as part of the equation that is another falsehood used to influence those who do not do their research. The healthcare plan is not going to cover illegals. thank you for that insightful contribution.. |
|
|
|
never said that it did. what I said was that all this talk about choice is useless. If, after day 1 this plan takes effect, you are not covered, or decide you want to drop your coverage for something else, you HAVE to go through the .gov to buy "qualified" insurance.
And the .gov gets to decide what coverage you can buy. where's the choice there? suppose I'm 15 and I don't have coverage.. I'm gonna grow up and be a big boy one day and have my own coverage.. if that happens after day 1 of year 1 of this plan, I am forced to go through this government agency to buy "qualified coverage".. Not only that, this bill puts a mandate on each and every individual in America to have coverage, so the about-to-be 18 year old me doesn't have the option of not buying healthcare. otherwise I get hit with a tax.. not every 20 year old out there needs a gold plated healthcare plan, most don't need but the most basic if any at all. but now this fed mandate is forcing this expense on each and every American. Tell me how that squares with your liberty and democratic principles.. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 10:48 PM
|
|
from the actual bill, 111 hb 3200.
full text: [urlhttp://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf pgs 18-19 Title I, Sec 102,(c)(1)
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE 24 COVERAGE.— (1) IN 1 GENERAL.—Individual health insurance 2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance 3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered 4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par 5 ticipating health benefits plan. If you're not covered by the time this proposed law takes effect, the only coverage you can get has to be through the Federally Managed "Exchange". This exchange is something like a clearing house where the regulator or Commissioner has the authority to decide which companies people may buy from and what kinds of coverage they may offer. A middle-man of sorts where "one" of the options is the Public Option. I'm not sure what you think that means but to me that reads like a system where the government gets to decide what mandates it applies to "it's competition". The thought of the government having the ability to "compete" in a market place it is regulating is akin to playing a basketball game where the other team is wearing the same jerseys as the referees. Or more aptly, showing up with a kids basketball team only to find out the ref's are all Dad's of players on the other team. Who do you think's gonna win that game? for all intents and purposes, it's exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
|
|
Correcting disease and illness is a far step from the perfect facial features and particular hair color. It would be amazing to know that I'm not passing on my Hyper Trophic Cardiomyopathy or my Muscular Dystrophy. I'm sure my offspring would also be grateful to have their lifespan lengthened. It's survival of the fittest and if we can make our offspring survivors, who's to say it's wrong? not to put to fine a point on it but prior to the advent of modern medicine chances are you wouldn't have a chance to pass on your muscular dystrophy or cardiomyopathy. That's what we were getting to before this frakus broke out. Would you rather live today or a thousand years ago, at which point people died of the common cold? Nobody's going to think any of this was anything but a brilliant invention, all of these diseases will fade into nothingness. whether I'd prefer to live today or a thousand years ago is irrelavent. the point is... well, best answer I can give you is to refer to Thomas Malthus.. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
|
|
Correcting disease and illness is a far step from the perfect facial features and particular hair color. It would be amazing to know that I'm not passing on my Hyper Trophic Cardiomyopathy or my Muscular Dystrophy. I'm sure my offspring would also be grateful to have their lifespan lengthened. It's survival of the fittest and if we can make our offspring survivors, who's to say it's wrong? not to put to fine a point on it but prior to the advent of modern medicine chances are you wouldn't have a chance to pass on your muscular dystrophy or cardiomyopathy. That's what we were getting to before this frakus broke out. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 06:57 PM
|
|
Pay close attention... very close attention! ![]() It's mind boggling just in how many people's DNA they have recorded. My GOD! They must have the DNA from millions of people all around the world. wait. I thought you were an atheist. or not.. hell I'm confused now.. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
|
|
It's mind boggling just in how many people's DNA they have recorded. My GOD! They must have the DNA from millions of people all around the world. wait. I thought you were an atheist. |
|
|
|
If they're going to to this, it needs to be in a way that recognises the least potentially violent and least likely to be a recidivist and work your way up from there.
there are plenty of people in prison in California for relatively minor offenses. things like pot, get out of here. don't need to be in prison in the first place. but kidnap, rape, beat, kill someone, etc. and you need to stay your @ss in jail.. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 06:36 PM
|
|
value in what sense?
in what calculation are you trying figure in the value of human life? I have to know before I answer the question. Am I a general commanding an army at war? Am I a doctor in a hospital? Am I a sailor stranded at sea and choosing between cannibalism and death? Have you killed someone I love? gotta know things like that. In all of these things, and many more. Does spirit need to exist to be able to find value in human life? no. life itself is valuable enough. as a commodity, if you like, or a resource. life, human life particularly, has intrinsic value both to itself and it's originating population. Do bears think anything about the afterlife? doubtful. Do you think they ponder the nature of their existence? highly doubtful. Do you think it even has a concept of what you and I mean when we say "soul" or "spirit"? Most doubtful. but does it value the life of one of it's own? sure. mothers of many species will take in a stranded infant of her own kind more often than not if she feels she can care for it. same would apply, I think, in the case of human life. let's say you were a slave trader. if you don't consider that people have spirits or souls, then they're just sacks of flesh. you don't see the slaves as people, only a resource to be exploited and valued. after all, the slave's no good to you dead, so you value his life. or you can see people , or life, as a resource to exploited for the purpose of breeding soldiers. get the biggest toughest women and breed them to the biggest toughest men. google "nazi joy division" I could go on but I feel driven this point home. yes. life has intrinsic value. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 06:59 PM
|
|
Tell me what other presidents promised to do that they actually did, ever, let alone in their first nine months. It's not a matter of having gotten it done or not having gotten it done. I think the OP was trying to say that all those things he said he was going to fix, he's gone and made that much worse with what he's done already. ergo, the question gets translated as "what makes you think anything he's going to do in the future is going to make those things any better if he doesn't change his philosophy on how it's to be fixed?". Stimulus didn't work? more stimulus! Cash4Clunkers program running foul? make it triple the original size! that'll fix it! Inflation getting a little unruly? Authorize the treasury to take on more debt! Wall St. got you down? Print a trillion in cash and throw into the pit of wallstreet. |
|
|
|
value in what sense?
in what calculation are you trying figure in the value of human life? I have to know before I answer the question. Am I a general commanding an army at war? Am I a doctor in a hospital? Am I a sailor stranded at sea and choosing between cannibalism and death? Have you killed someone I love? gotta know things like that. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
|
|
This is getting good. I'm enjoying this. Thank you. Abra//
I'd have to look at the assumptions and observations in the work you cite but I'm skeptical of the concept that global human culture has accidentally found a way to invalidate the mechanism behind billions of years of evolution. Most people, on a global scale, reproduce within their own ethnic groups (think India, China, Central/South America)(and travel suprisingly little in comparison to how much Americans) and while that may not be within restrictions the hamlet enclaves of old tended to impose, I definately doubt the lack of that restriction has completely dismantled the evolutionary process.. Well, I didn't mean to necessarily imply that we are already doomed because of this. But clearly we are heading to even more globalization rather than less. Plus the family size is becoming a major factor too simply because of the numberer of people on the planet right now at 6 billion people we aren't going to start encouraging people to have large families. The other thing also, is that via modern medicine we are keeping people alive to breed who would naturally never be able to breed either because they would be naturally sterile, or because they would have naturally died long before they would have made it to breeding age. We've even been doing that via old-fashioned vaccinations such as for chicken pox, etc. I'm not even remotely suggesting that we shouldn't have vaccinated for those deseases, I'm simply pointing out the fact that we have interferred with 'natural' selection. If 'natural' selection would have been allowed to work then only those people who would have been naturally immune to chicken pox would have survived and over so many generations no humans would be sustible to chicken pox because all of the people who carred those genes would have died off. So in a sense, we've already been doing 'genetic engineering' in a way even when we weren't meaning to engineer genes. We were still interferring with the process of 'natural' selection. Which, again, I'm not even suggesting that this is necessarily wrong. If the atheists are right and life is just a freak accident, then why not interfer with natural selection? It's just one big accident anyway if the atheists are rights. Why let it continue to go along accidenly if we now have the power to consciously improve it? We do it for plants and livestock already. Why not treat ourselves to a new pair of genes? ![]() I totally get what you mean. You are correct that vaccinations and modern medicine contribute to overpopulation worldwide and overcrowding in the US. They do. But I can't impugn either for what it's done for the good of mankind. yes, there are plenty that would generally not survive the cold and flu season as recently as a hundred years ago. it makes the news when people die of the flu these days. back a long time ago people died all the time of flu and cold and thyphoid and turberculosis and all kinds of things no one die sof anymore, young, old or anywhere in between.. I take it you've heard of Malthus. I think that these superflu's and mega-colds are nature's response to our combined immunities and living conditions. Think about it, we're seeing things that really haven't been around since the dark ages. plague is popping up here and there and you hear about it more and more often, it seems. disease is like a living thing. it'll feed on it's share of the population be it a few hundred million worldwide or a few billion. it will grow, like a snake in a cage, in proportion to the size of the enlcosure you put it in. and there are things we do that encourage it, so you can't blame it for doing what it does. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 02:57 PM
|
|
Interesting food for thought, indeed, AbraC, and worth looking into. I hadn't considered that the population explosion and the globalized nature human culture has short circuited the evolutionary process..
That will take some time to weed through whatever literature is published on it. and when I get done with the research on which I'm currently concentrated, it'll be interesting reading.. I'm not a geneticist, though I used to **** one (i'm sure she'd be ok with that characterization of our relationship) and she never made any reference to such a concept in the many discussions we had on topics of this nature. Perhaps she hadn't come across it in her PhD research on mammalian evolution/gene sequencing.. who knows? But i have studied evolution from a geologic and earth history perspective, so I'm comfortable with the conversation on evolution and genetics until it gets to a highly technical place. I just wonder if a significant proportion of the world's human population travels and interbreeds sufficiently to have such derailing effects on the human genome or to halt/revert human evolution. That's a pretty big pill to swallow. If life on earth and DNA teach us anything about its nature, it should be that it is highly resilient. I'd have to look at the assumptions and observations in the work you cite but I'm skeptical of the concept that global human culture has accidentally found a way to invalidate the mechanism behind billions of years of evolution. Most people, on a global scale, reproduce within their own ethnic groups (think India, China, Central/South America)(and travel suprisingly little in comparison to how much Americans) and while that may not be within restrictions the hamlet enclaves of old tended to impose, I definately doubt the lack of that restriction has completely dismantled the evolutionary process.. |
|
|
|
Article should be titled, "Persons under 45 throwing money down bottomless hole with every paycheck, Federal subsidies follow"
|
|
|
|
The article makes some good points about the irrational "right". However, socialized health care is a disaster. It has never worked anywhere its been tried, and never will work-like all central planning schemes. The real way to solve this is by stopping State involvement in health and allowing the free market to lower prices naturally. That is funny. That is what has supposedly been happening. Not really. The government has been meddling with health care for decades, and screwing it up royally. I'm not sure what makes you think that's been happening when the welfare rolls are higher than ever and inflation is sky high and there are more regulations than ever. don't trouble her with the facts, hb34. They will only confuse her, piss her off, and then she'll dismiss them as mis-information and propaganda funded by the rightwing media and corporate interests.. What facts? His interpretation of illegimate information to this argument? see what I mean? I couldn't have simulated her response more eloquently... |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 12:39 PM
|
|
You don't have to pay taxes. So it is not an infringement of your rights. I keep telling all these folks who complain constantly about taxes, don't pey em in protest. Tell the government you do not like that they use your tax dollars to help people and stop paying. It is that simple. Taxes are voluntarily paid. Or at least by most of the citizens I know. They pay them willingly and in earnest that they help this country run and help people. For all those who find it a forced thing, they should stop paying them in protest. Your life has to be better if you are not paying those damn taxes, so stop doing it. So again healthcare is not an infringement on anyone's rights. It will not socialize this country. You think so? google "Ed Brown, Plainfield New Hampshire" Convicted of non-payment of Federal income taxes and sentenced to 63 months in Federal Prison. Go ahead, stop paying your income taxes and see how long it takes for the feds to show up. Stop paying your property taxes and see how long you live in your home. Stop paying sales tax to the state and local AHJ's (authority having jurisdiction) and see how long your store stays open.. taxes voluntary.. yeah sure. |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 01:11 PM
|
|
what I get sick of, and it's been a strategem of the left for a while now, is to attempt to claim some kind of intellectual high ground. Saying things like, Fill-in-the-blank Republican is just not smart enough to understand this or that, and Fill-in-the-blank Democrat is the smartest person for the job, no one's got the intellectual firepower this person has. and the message rings true when they follow that rhetoric with some stained t-shirt wearing hick from the backwoods of Kentucky saying something stupid and racist. This whole game about "my dad's smarter than your dad" is just juvenile and counterproductive. For all the intellectual firepower Tim Geithner allegedly brings to the table and vast understanding of the tax code and federal regulatory authority, he still couldn't figure out how to pay his taxes for a significant part of the last decade, an offense that would have landed you or me in a federal "bone me in the a__" prison for tax evasion.. But no cellie named Art for ol' Timmy! No, this guy gets to head up the federal treasury because "he's smart". God forbid a person should provide for himself and his family. And I love the stats. The status quo kills 18,000 people a year. Does that include people that die of lung cancer from smoking or of liver failure from a lifetime of drinking whiskey? does it include all the gangbangers that can't seem to stop killing each other in those wonderful urban utopias like Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Houston etc..? What about the glut of the urban poor who suffer from obesity and die of heart disease?.. is there anything in the "Public Option" that will stop their mothers from feeding them twinkies and cocacola with those food stamps their neighbors subsidise, rather than rice and beans, which are far more healthy and way less expensive? How many of those deaths could a "public option" have saved? what about the legions of the uninsured who drive around on $4500 sets of 22" rims but "can't afford the premiums" for insurance and who, instead, go to county hospital ER's and skip out on the bill?? what does the public option do about that?? No.. What this country needs is not another taxpayer subsidised entitlement program, but a good shot in the arm of some good old self respect, rugged individualism, and self reliance. Dependence on Government leads to shackles of economic slavery. There should be a safety net. We should not leave defenseless those who cannot fend for themselves. But for those that can provide for themselves and refuse to do so, there should be little sympathy. The safety net should not be a destination resort hammock for the perpetually irresponsible. It takes up all the room for those that could have been caught but end up falling through. I agree that there are problems with the way doctors are forced to deal with their patients and how healthcare is "delivered" (as though it were a truckload of groceries). But the manner in which the Dems are going about fixing it is completely bass-akwards. Disregarding most of the rant as hypocritical. It is hypocritical not to respect people's choices in their lives but want to "respect" their freedom to die without healthcare. Here is the problem with the whole issue. One (a person) cannot force self responsibility on others to their own standard without denying them the right to live their lives how they wish. Period. There is no way around it. Do we fight for only the fews freedoms or do we fight for all freedoms? And don't give me the crapola about the cost, we are going to pay taxes in this country forever, it will never go away. And if our tax dollars care for us, all of us, as they should, then they do what they are supposed to do. Having healthcare for all of us is in no way an infringement on anyone's rights. In no way is it socializing this country. In no way is it a hardship that we should not be willing to bear if we care about this country. I knew you would, for whatever reason, disregard me. That's why I didn't write it for you. I wrote it for all the others out there who legitmately want to debate the issue without poopoo'ing a conservative's viewpoint as being biggoted zealotry. but in your "refutation" of my point, you prove exactly what I've been trying to say. One cannot force someone to be responsible for him/herself. That's true. But the other side of that coin is, the irresponsible do not have the right to force the cost of their lack of responsibility onto the backs of others, which is tantamount to what your assertion claims. No, we do not have the right to tell people how to live their lives. That's precisely what conservatives have been saying. But once you get the .gov involved in managing healthcare, that's exactly what you're opening the door for. Because once we decide that twinkies and ho-ho's and cocacola are "public health risks", it's just a slight step to saying ok, no more ho-ho's and twinkies and no more cocacola, people are dying of it and it's putting undue strain on the healthcare system.. Don't believe me? consult your own view of smoking in public.. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Un-desirable genes?
|
|
I'm surprised no one is arguing that genetic variation is good for evolution (which it is, in fact evolution depends on it). And if that's the case, why should we meddle with (or think it productive to meddle with) the evolutionary process that's kept life living on this rock through billions of years of ice ages, worldwide flood events, meteor/comet impacts, raging wildfires, continental scale lava floods and a host of other life choking phenomenon?
I don't understand it. What if we select-out the very genetic mutation(s) that will carry mankind through the next steps of evolution without ever knowing it, (as there will be no way to know), simply because we see the initial impacts of such as being "disease"? I wonder what it was like when the human appendix started to atrophy and eventually become vestigial? People can die of appendicitis. So should we treat the gene that prompts the appendix not to develop as a "bad gene"? I doubt it. So the question constantly returns, in my mind, to 'who gets to decide what is desireable and what is not?' and at the same time, 'who gets to be the genetic code police?' After all, if we have the ability to detect and affect what is desireable and what is not, should it not be, then, our responsibility to make sure the "undesireable" genes don't muddle the pool? And if that's so, isn't it just easier simply to prevent them from propagating by sterilizing the carriers while encouraging the carriers of the "good genes" to procreate? do you see how far down the rabbit hole this arguement leads?? |
|
|
|
Edited by
raiderfan_32
on
Sun 08/23/09 11:49 AM
|
|
The article makes some good points about the irrational "right". However, socialized health care is a disaster. It has never worked anywhere its been tried, and never will work-like all central planning schemes. The real way to solve this is by stopping State involvement in health and allowing the free market to lower prices naturally. That is funny. That is what has supposedly been happening. Not really. The government has been meddling with health care for decades, and screwing it up royally. I'm not sure what makes you think that's been happening when the welfare rolls are higher than ever and inflation is sky high and there are more regulations than ever. don't trouble her with the facts, hb34. They will only confuse her, piss her off, and then she'll dismiss them as mis-information and propaganda funded by the rightwing media and corporate interests.. |
|
|