The health care debate... OR how there's not been one.

[NERVUN]

You've convinced me. We need privately owned police departments immediately!

Any minute now he's gonna break out Rand and then we can REALLY laugh at him.

[DaWoad]

One of the political buzzwords today is "socialized medicine". It would tend to mean a government run, owned, and controlled system of medicine. People often use the term to mean any number of things, but that's the full definition. For instance, if the government does not own any of the organizations that provide service, but pays for everything, it's 'single payer', and that payer is the government. If it controls AND pays, but does not own, that's the economic "fascist" model, where government allows private ownership, but controls all nearly all aspects of an or all industry.

Issues with this argument
1)The government doesn't own or run or control healthcare the government mearly provides funding so that those who need treatment get treatement regardless of wealth. (this is the definition of socialized medicine. your "socalled definition is an argument unto itself . . .basic deating fallacy please don't try to slip your own person beliefs into your definitions)

Examining why some argue for it:

Why would you include this? This is pure Subjective arguing and does little except detract from whatever shred of "impartiality" you had after the opening

*Sniped rant about how peoplke who don't agree with you are wrong! or Ignorant or only have personale reasons! or are zelots!*

L:eave this kinda crap out . .. it doesn't do anything for your argument and acts as a general adhominem against EVERYONE who disagrees with you lessening peoples desire to debate this topic with you.

A quick rundown of the common arguments...

Getting rid of common arguments for a more indepth debate? always a good thing.
[Quote}
1. "It's cheaper elsewhere". Well, it may or may not be. Nobody knows, because nobody can do a full cost analysis. This argument will be referenced again.

2. "It works better elsewhere". Well, again, it may or may not be. Nobody really knows, because it's very difficult to quantify the factors that affect longevity and "health". Again, this will be dealt with in more depth.

3. "the immorality of letting people die because of cost of treatment". For some reason, the people who make this complaint completely ignore the fact that all nations with socialized or similar systems ration expensive treatements, and often allow people to die for purely financial reasons. No nation can afford "everything for everybody". Though, in the overall scheme of things, the US comes the closest.
[/Quote]

An outline of the arguments to come. Also a good thing. that last though . . . .thats a pretty broad claim you'd better be able to back up.

Then, the common arguments against it...

Again good plan

1. Immense cost. Transferring the spending authority for health care from individuals to Congress results in a VERY large increase dollars spent by Congress. Nobody can point out to me ANYTHING that Congress does that is highly efficient. The examples of inefficiency and pointless and rampant waste are everywhere and nearly overwhelming in size, number, and pervansiveness.

2. The removal of market forces from health care. Honestly, there's very little now, and this will be addressed later, again.

3. It's a huge expansion of government at a time when government spending and mandates and sponsored agencies are responsible for a world-wide financial upheaval. Why add more of the cause of our problems financially?

One of the most common cited arguments for the "pro" side is that other nations spend less and have "better" statistics. Sadly, this argument is based upon pure fiction. It has a number of presumptions that are absolutely not true.

ok good argument now back it up.

1. Health care systems are the determining factor for longevity. Demonstrably false. Numerous studies have determined that within the overall factors for longevity, the system of health care is well down the list. Diet, lifestyle, genetics, pollution, stress, for instance, all rank higher in importance than does who pays for your doctor - or even if you see a doctor at all.

2. Published numbers for health care spending are accurate. Demonstrably false. Not even the governments of the US, Britain, and Canada can accurately predict need, cost, nor account for cost-shifting and beaurocratic obscurity. Thus, all numbers are "estimates".

3. Regardless of the system, people will require, get, or consume the same quantities. Again, this is demonstrably false. Numerous trials in the US alone demonstrate that incentives can greatly affect the quantity of consumption, with no measureable change in overall outcome.

1)True . . .to an extent unless you can provide a source. Yes everything else matters but so does acess to healthcare you need to backup this claim or it will be taken to be false.

2)Everything is an estimate, nobody goes out and talks to every individual which is what would be required for anything except an estimate (see basic statistics). That doesn't mean you can just discount the numbers. People do indepth surveys and provide error margines for these numbers. Trying to discount all evidence because its "an estimate" is silly at best. this argument is taken to be false.

3)Show me these studies don't just claim they exist . . . .Argument False until otherwise proven true.
essentially your argument fails due to lack of support and poor understanding of statistics right here . . .but we'll continues just for fun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if the US spends more per capita and doesn't live as long as average, does it indict the health c are system? Well, no. In fact, statistically, it's near meaningless. Personally, on the other hand, the system is a huge factor. More explanation later.

{artially true . . .you spend more per person and the people die more frequently? This indicates BAD healthcare. a general high healthcare costs plus high mortality rates, on the other hand, has many other possible causes.

So, let's look at what people complain about for the US health care system:

1. It's expensive. to which, one HAS to respond: "define expensive". Medicare says that on average, it spends 25,000 the last year of an enrollees life. Medicare is a massive cost-shifting program (government reimburses under cost of service, making everyone else pay more), so it would be more accurate to say that the last year of life costs about 75,000+ for those who have the means to pay. And, for most intents and purposes, it accomplishes minimal at extending life.

2. Too many people "not covered". If you wish to say that too many people don't voluntarily choose to save or budget for medical bills, this is true. Insurance, however, is the source of our problem, not the answer.

1)Give me stats. . . please . . . . something to prove that its more than just you claiming this.
2)More later maybe? Thats an incomplete argument at best

What's wrong with socialized medicine?

1. No market forces to control costs.
2. Invasive government tends to be overbearing.
3. Very poor results. More on this later.

1)inncorrect. There are still TONS of market forces at work including supply vs. demand of specialists drugs etc.
2)I disagree now provide backup.
3)better back that o up too.

What's wrong with insurance?

1. The definition of insurance
1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c: the sum for which something is insured
2: a means of guaranteeing protection or safety <the contract is your insurance against price changes>

Insurance should be a risk sharing factor. But most health insurance today is not insurance. Instead, it's a menu of pre-paid or partially paid services combined with a description of what isn't paid for. Most buyers of health insurance are actively shopping for health care services... from an insurance company. That would be like buying your car from Geico, by negotiating with them a monthly premium not just for your liability, but also what kind of car, what options on the car, how it will be serviced and how much gas provided, and then Geico buys the car you drive. That would be stupid. And so is most health care insurance.

Why is it so? It's a result of wage and price controls, and a continued tax policy designed to bind health care to employment. During WWII, the government instituted wage controls. Since nobody could pay more than X, employers started finding things the government could NOT control or limit, to attract and reward employees. Paid vacations, special days off, pre-paid medical, even pre-paid cars and education allowances and many, many other things were offered.

After WWII ended, and the wage controls were at an end, corporate and personal income tax rates were astronomical. However, Congress had enacted a gazillion deductions, including health care costs for employers. So, it was more cost effective for the employer to pay all your medical bills, than to pay you more and let you fend for yourself.

In the ever-present effort for employers and businesses to find the most financially beneficial arrangement, tax laws and policy have very tightly bound health care spending to the employer's bottom line. Until the 80's, the tax rates and deductions were often 60 to 90+ percent of the cost, meaning it was nearly free for employers to provide health care insurance, but not for employees to be paid more and buy their own.

Now, it has become "cultural" in that people expect it. Not that it's even a smart thing, but since it's customary, and still the favored arrangement by the IRS, it has become very widespread. The last couple of Democrat administrations have attemptd to force ALL health care payments to employers. This would even further compound the wrongness.

So jobs offered insurence is the wrong way to go . . .so you claim . . .and yet your reasoning for thisis missing. You gave a history and a faulty analogy then ranted about how democrats are TEH EBIL! Give me something to debate here . . .please . . .all you said was that it wasn't the rigth way to go.

2. Insurance is a third party to the service AND payment. It merely adds a measure of inefficiency. Doctors and hospitals and so on hire people whose sole job it is to find ways to bill more items for the same services rendered. Often, office procedures are based upon giving you far more procedures than needed, just so they can bill insurance for more services that you did not need. This is the common and normal operating procedure for ALL "third party payers", including government.

Agreed on the other hand it creats jobs which inturn allow for better economic growth. any inefficiency it adds gets returned . . .monney can neither be created nor destroyed mearly exchanged. Further more procedures may be a good thing in a preventative medicinal sense. That point is debatable but . . . .

3. Insurance companies at as large purchasing blocks, but treat you as individual buyers. Whatever they might save is never passed to you.

Same thing happenes eveywhere . . . thats just the way it works otherwise they can't pay their employees which is a bad thing.

4. Health insurance systems come between the consumer and provider, limiting both in what they can and can't do. They often pick your doctor, what services you can get, and at the same time, undercompensate the provider.

PROOF PLEASE!
more importantly they provide a "safety net" so that if you get sick and don't have monney in hand at that moment you can still get treatment. This is a good thing.

What's RIGHT about the US health care system?

1. Incredibly responsive. You can get any needed services almost anywhere pretty much immediately. From life flights to ER care to high technology to even expensive diagnostic tools, it is more available with less wait than anywhere else in the world.

2. Very effective. With state of the art diagnostics, fast response, the world's highest levels of research and trials, and access to almost any drug, procedure, technology, or knowledge to exist concerning health care, the cure or survival rates in the US exceed those of just about everywhere, as it concerns serious medical issues like cancer, heart disease, etc.

3. Ubiquitous. Even if you live in a remote area, long travel to find and use specialists and/or technology is rarely needed.

O COME ON! please just once a little backing. You've done nothing but make claims and provided no proof that your claims are correct. Come back with proof and try again

[DaWoad]

One of the political buzzwords today is "socialized medicine". It would tend to mean a government run, owned, and controlled system of medicine. People often use the term to mean any number of things, but that's the full definition. For instance, if the government does not own any of the organizations that provide service, but pays for everything, it's 'single payer', and that payer is the government. If it controls AND pays, but does not own, that's the economic "fascist" model, where government allows private ownership, but controls all nearly all aspects of an or all industry.

Issues with this argument
1)The government doesn't own or run or control healthcare the government mearly provides funding so that those who need treatment get treatement regardless of wealth. (this is the definition of socialized medicine. your "socalled definition is an argument unto itself . . .basic debating fallacy please don't try to slip your own person beliefs into your definitions)

Examining why some argue for it:

Why would you include this? This is pure subjective arguing and does little except detract from whatever shred of "impartiality" you had after the opening

*Sniped rant about how peoplke who don't agree with you are wrong! or Ignorant or only have personale reasons! or are zelots!*

L:eave this kinda crap out . .. it doesn't do anything for your argument and acts as a general adhominem against EVERYONE who disagrees with you lessening peoples desire to debate this topic with you.

A quick rundown of the common arguments...

Getting rid of common arguments for a more indepth debate? always a good thing.

1. "It's cheaper elsewhere". Well, it may or may not be. Nobody knows, because nobody can do a full cost analysis. This argument will be referenced again.

2. "It works better elsewhere". Well, again, it may or may not be. Nobody really knows, because it's very difficult to quantify the factors that affect longevity and "health". Again, this will be dealt with in more depth.

3. "the immorality of letting people die because of cost of treatment". For some reason, the people who make this complaint completely ignore the fact that all nations with socialized or similar systems ration expensive treatements, and often allow people to die for purely financial reasons. No nation can afford "everything for everybody". Though, in the overall scheme of things, the US comes the closest.

An outline of the arguments to come. Also a good thing. that last though . . . .thats a pretty broad claim you'd better be able to back up.

Then, the common arguments against it...

Again good plan

1. Immense cost. Transferring the spending authority for health care from individuals to Congress results in a VERY large increase dollars spent by Congress. Nobody can point out to me ANYTHING that Congress does that is highly efficient. The examples of inefficiency and pointless and rampant waste are everywhere and nearly overwhelming in size, number, and pervansiveness.

2. The removal of market forces from health care. Honestly, there's very little now, and this will be addressed later, again.

3. It's a huge expansion of government at a time when government spending and mandates and sponsored agencies are responsible for a world-wide financial upheaval. Why add more of the cause of our problems financially?

One of the most common cited arguments for the "pro" side is that other nations spend less and have "better" statistics. Sadly, this argument is based upon pure fiction. It has a number of presumptions that are absolutely not true.

ok good argument now back it up.

1. Health care systems are the determining factor for longevity. Demonstrably false. Numerous studies have determined that within the overall factors for longevity, the system of health care is well down the list. Diet, lifestyle, genetics, pollution, stress, for instance, all rank higher in importance than does who pays for your doctor - or even if you see a doctor at all.

2. Published numbers for health care spending are accurate. Demonstrably false. Not even the governments of the US, Britain, and Canada can accurately predict need, cost, nor account for cost-shifting and beaurocratic obscurity. Thus, all numbers are "estimates".

3. Regardless of the system, people will require, get, or consume the same quantities. Again, this is demonstrably false. Numerous trials in the US alone demonstrate that incentives can greatly affect the quantity of consumption, with no measureable change in overall outcome.

1)True . . .to an extent unless you can provide a source. Yes everything else matters but so does acess to healthcare you need to backup this claim or it will be taken to be false.

2)Everything is an estimate, nobody goes out and talks to every individual which is what would be required for anything except an estimate (see basic statistics). That doesn't mean you can just discount the numbers. People do indepth surveys and provide error margines for these numbers. Trying to discount all evidence because its "an estimate" is silly at best. this argument is taken to be false.

3)Show me these studies don't just claim they exist . . . .Argument False until otherwise proven true.
essentially your argument fails due to lack of support and poor understanding of statistics right here . . .but we'll continues just for fun
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if the US spends more per capita and doesn't live as long as average, does it indict the health c are system? Well, no. In fact, statistically, it's near meaningless. Personally, on the other hand, the system is a huge factor. More explanation later.

{artially true . . .you spend more per person and the people die more frequently? This indicates BAD healthcare. a general high healthcare costs plus high mortality rates, on the other hand, has many other possible causes.

So, let's look at what people complain about for the US health care system:

1. It's expensive. to which, one HAS to respond: "define expensive". Medicare says that on average, it spends 25,000 the last year of an enrollees life. Medicare is a massive cost-shifting program (government reimburses under cost of service, making everyone else pay more), so it would be more accurate to say that the last year of life costs about 75,000+ for those who have the means to pay. And, for most intents and purposes, it accomplishes minimal at extending life.

2. Too many people "not covered". If you wish to say that too many people don't voluntarily choose to save or budget for medical bills, this is true. Insurance, however, is the source of our problem, not the answer.

1)Give me stats. . . please . . . . something to prove that its more than just you claiming this.
2)More later maybe? Thats an incomplete argument at best

What's wrong with socialized medicine?

1. No market forces to control costs.
2. Invasive government tends to be overbearing.
3. Very poor results. More on this later.

1)inncorrect. There are still TONS of market forces at work including supply vs. demand of specialists drugs etc.
2)I disagree now provide backup.
3)better back that o up too.

What's wrong with insurance?

1. The definition of insurance
1 a: the business of insuring persons or property b: coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c: the sum for which something is insured
2: a means of guaranteeing protection or safety <the contract is your insurance against price changes>

Insurance should be a risk sharing factor. But most health insurance today is not insurance. Instead, it's a menu of pre-paid or partially paid services combined with a description of what isn't paid for. Most buyers of health insurance are actively shopping for health care services... from an insurance company. That would be like buying your car from Geico, by negotiating with them a monthly premium not just for your liability, but also what kind of car, what options on the car, how it will be serviced and how much gas provided, and then Geico buys the car you drive. That would be stupid. And so is most health care insurance.

Why is it so? It's a result of wage and price controls, and a continued tax policy designed to bind health care to employment. During WWII, the government instituted wage controls. Since nobody could pay more than X, employers started finding things the government could NOT control or limit, to attract and reward employees. Paid vacations, special days off, pre-paid medical, even pre-paid cars and education allowances and many, many other things were offered.

After WWII ended, and the wage controls were at an end, corporate and personal income tax rates were astronomical. However, Congress had enacted a gazillion deductions, including health care costs for employers. So, it was more cost effective for the employer to pay all your medical bills, than to pay you more and let you fend for yourself.

In the ever-present effort for employers and businesses to find the most financially beneficial arrangement, tax laws and policy have very tightly bound health care spending to the employer's bottom line. Until the 80's, the tax rates and deductions were often 60 to 90+ percent of the cost, meaning it was nearly free for employers to provide health care insurance, but not for employees to be paid more and buy their own.

Now, it has become "cultural" in that people expect it. Not that it's even a smart thing, but since it's customary, and still the favored arrangement by the IRS, it has become very widespread. The last couple of Democrat administrations have attemptd to force ALL health care payments to employers. This would even further compound the wrongness.

So jobs offered insurence is the wrong way to go . . .so you claim . . .and yet your reasoning for thisis missing. You gave a history and a faulty analogy then ranted about how democrats are TEH EBIL! Give me something to debate here . . .please . . .all you said was that it wasn't the rigth way to go.

2. Insurance is a third party to the service AND payment. It merely adds a measure of inefficiency. Doctors and hospitals and so on hire people whose sole job it is to find ways to bill more items for the same services rendered. Often, office procedures are based upon giving you far more procedures than needed, just so they can bill insurance for more services that you did not need. This is the common and normal operating procedure for ALL "third party payers", including government.

Agreed on the other hand it creats jobs which inturn allow for better economic growth. any inefficiency it adds gets returned . . .monney can neither be created nor destroyed mearly exchanged. Further more procedures may be a good thing in a preventative medicinal sense. That point is debatable but . . . .

3. Insurance companies at as large purchasing blocks, but treat you as individual buyers. Whatever they might save is never passed to you.

Same thing happenes eveywhere . . . thats just the way it works otherwise they can't pay their employees which is a bad thing.

4. Health insurance systems come between the consumer and provider, limiting both in what they can and can't do. They often pick your doctor, what services you can get, and at the same time, undercompensate the provider.

PROOF PLEASE!
more importantly they provide a "safety net" so that if you get sick and don't have monney in hand at that moment you can still get treatment. This is a good thing.

What's RIGHT about the US health care system?

1. Incredibly responsive. You can get any needed services almost anywhere pretty much immediately. From life flights to ER care to high technology to even expensive diagnostic tools, it is more available with less wait than anywhere else in the world.

2. Very effective. With state of the art diagnostics, fast response, the world's highest levels of research and trials, and access to almost any drug, procedure, technology, or knowledge to exist concerning health care, the cure or survival rates in the US exceed those of just about everywhere, as it concerns serious medical issues like cancer, heart disease, etc.

3. Ubiquitous. Even if you live in a remote area, long travel to find and use specialists and/or technology is rarely needed.

O COME ON! please just once a little backing. You've done nothing but make claims and provided no proof that your claims are correct. Come back with proof and try again

[Milks Empire]

O COME ON! please just once a little backing. You've done nothing but make claims and provided no proof that your claims are correct. Come back with proof and try again

He's not going to. He never does. When one calls him on any of his bullshit, all he ever does is flame.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

You've convinced me. We need privately owned police departments immediately!

Any minute now he's gonna break out Rand and then we can REALLY laugh at him.

*drools*

[Barringtonia]

And the child got permanent brain damage.

I describe regular dental check-ups and root canal procedures as inexpensive preventative medicine.

I'd just call it a case of parental neglect.

Well there we go, if you're born in a poor neighbourhood, which means you'll likely have poor local services and low opportunities, which very much heightens your chances of remaining poor, and you can't afford the fees of a private medical system, nor the insurance that covers vital medical needs,

Well that's your neglectful fault for being born poor.

[Robustian]

They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

And the private sector is any different exactly how?

Because you get to choose whether you do business with them or not. You get to make value judgements and implement them. You have no such choice with the USFS.

[Barringtonia]

Does anyone else have an ad for Evony, featuring a female with extraordinary large breasts, running down the side of this forum, between that fantasy and Robustian's, it's hard to concentrate.

EDIT: I turned adblock off this morning to see a link sent to me, my what I've been missing, soft porn on NSG, I hesitate to turn it back on but I will.

[Soheran]

It is the epitome of what you claim a government health service would be like.

I do not think you understand the nature of how governments work, or the incentives government agencies have: you still seem to be laboring under the delusions that (a) there are no means of accountability for government officials and (b) the problems inherent in effective means of accountability in large, indirectly-managed institutions (what is called the principal-agent problem) are somehow absent in the private sector.

But for the moment I will leave those issues aside. As far as the particular case of health care goes, you are actually comparing apples and oranges. A government plan for universal coverage would be high-profile, and its quality and cost would be a matter of prominent general public concern: the sorts of incentives that work well on democratic governments would be at their zenith, especially if private alternatives were curtailed.

[Milks Empire]

You've convinced me. We need privately owned police departments immediately!

Any minute now he's gonna break out Rand and then we can REALLY laugh at him.

*drools*

Educate me on your sarcasm-fu, LG-sensei.

They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

And the private sector is any different exactly how?

Because you get to choose whether you do business with them or not. You get to make value judgements and implement them. You have no such choice with the USFS.

Nice strawman. Explain to me exactly how your run-of-the-mill, rank-and-file public employee who wants to move up for more pay and benefits is any different from your run-of-the-mill, rank-and-file private employee who wants to move up for more pay and benefits. Or are you just gonna flame me like you flame everyone else who contradicts you?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

They're just hired people who have no altruistic motivation, other than to find ways to move up for more pay and benefits.

And the private sector is any different exactly how?

Because you get to choose whether you do business with them or not. You get to make value judgements and implement them. You have no such choice with the USFS.

Yeah. You can bleed out instead. You can let the tumor grow. You can use sign language(you can't talk because of all the gurgling blood in your throat) that you refuse to pay more than $100 for a new esophagus and if they can't give you a decent deal, you'll take your business elsewhere.

[Robustian]

One of the political buzzwords today is "socialized medicine". It would tend to mean a government run, owned, and controlled system of medicine. People often use the term to mean any number of things, but that's the full definition. For instance, if the government does not own any of the organizations that provide service, but pays for everything, it's 'single payer', and that payer is the government. If it controls AND pays, but does not own, that's the economic "fascist" model, where government allows private ownership, but controls all nearly all aspects of an or all industry.

Issues with this argument
1)The government doesn't own or run or control healthcare the government mearly provides funding so that those who need treatment get treatement regardless of wealth. (this is the definition of socialized medicine. your "socalled definition is an argument unto itself . . .basic deating fallacy please don't try to slip your own person beliefs into your definitions)

could you explain what you're disagreeing with?

After all, I said that "socialized medicine" is a popular buzzword, and it would me government run, owned, and managed health care system of medicine. Oh, and I happened to post that if the government just pays for everything, it's a "single payer".

So, please explain what you're arguing about and why.

[Soheran]

Nobody even bothered to verify that Obama is legitemately a citizen. No, not conspiracy talk.

It's true. Whether he's a citizen or not has never been investigated. Literally. NO PERSON ANYWHERE in the process did it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ob ... q=&aqi=g10

"Results 1 - 10 of about 29,000,000 for obama citizen" (emphasis mine)

[NERVUN]

Does anyone else have an ad for Evony, featuring a female with extraordinary large breasts, running down the side of this forum, between that fantasy and Robustian's, it's hard to concentrate.

EDIT: I turned adblock off this morning to see a link sent to me, my what I've been missing, soft porn on NSG, I hesitate to turn it back on but I will.

Sometimes, yes. I don't mind a bit though.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Educate me on your sarcasm-fu, LG-sensei.

When you can snatch the reductio ad absurdum from my hand, then you will be ready.

[Blouman Empire]

Does anyone else have an ad for Evony, featuring a female with extraordinary large breasts, running down the side of this forum, between that fantasy and Robustian's, it's hard to concentrate.

EDIT: I turned adblock off this morning to see a link sent to me, my what I've been missing, soft porn on NSG, I hesitate to turn it back on but I will.

No I am getting something called The Gabriel Method, all about losing weight.

[Blouman Empire]

And now I'm getting private health insurance ads.

[Robustian]

And the child got permanent brain damage.

I describe regular dental check-ups and root canal procedures as inexpensive preventative medicine.

I'd just call it a case of parental neglect.

Well there we go, if you're born in a poor neighbourhood, which means you'll likely have poor local services and low opportunities, which very much heightens your chances of remaining poor, and you can't afford the fees of a private medical system, nor the insurance that covers vital medical needs,

Well that's your neglectful fault for being born poor.

Amazing. I've raised 5 kids, and I was poor. Real, honest to goodness less than poverty. Way less. Guess what? We never let our kids be neglected or go through anything like this. I've even been in this situation. Guess what? Kids did not get systemic infections due to a neglected dental absess. Maybe what you need to do is stop making stupid strawman arguments.

[Barringtonia]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+citizen&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

"Results 1 - 10 of about 29,000,000 for obama citizen" (emphasis mine)

Ohh, this requires No.23 in the stock reply cupboard of Robustian debate methods, I have it somewhere...

And for some unknown reason, you just accepted that argument, didn't you? It fit, so you use it. Truth? You've not been concerned yet.

[Barringtonia]

Amazing. I've raised 5 kids, and I was poor. Real, honest to goodness less than poverty. Way less. Guess what? We never let our kids be neglected or go through anything like this. I've even been in this situation. Guess what? Kids did not get systemic infections due to a neglected dental absess. Maybe what you need to do is stop making stupid strawman arguments.

You seem to have been through every unsubstantiated event that professes to back up your arguments.

EDIT: I might be confusing you with Parthenon, similar styles of debate, angry claims with no back up.

[Robustian]

Nobody even bothered to verify that Obama is legitemately a citizen. No, not conspiracy talk.

It's true. Whether he's a citizen or not has never been investigated. Literally. NO PERSON ANYWHERE in the process did it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ob ... q=&aqi=g10

"Results 1 - 10 of about 29,000,000 for obama citizen" (emphasis mine)

Did you read what I said, or just make a knee jerk reaction?

Guess what? Knee-jerk was you.

"the process". Key words to pay attention to. You know, I actually say things that are true, relevant, and you have to READ AND PAY ATTENTION to what is said. Until you actually respond to WHAT IS SAID you cannot be anything but wrong.

First, from his first public office held, NOBODY has verified Obama's citizenship. Nobody. In each and every case, he has simply stated he's a citizen. No relevant BEAUROCRAT, elected or not, has ever required him to prove it, whether the law required him to or not.

Now, whether you care about the argument or not, it is a matter of law. What's far more troublesome... Is that not a single state required a single candidate for president, or any other office, to prove citizenship. Even though the law requires it. This is not an onerous burden. Yet, not a single one can be bothered to do their job.

And you're trying to tell me that the federal government and it's 1.8 million employees is both responsible and responsive to the public?

[Robustian]

Yeah. You can bleed out instead. You can let the tumor grow. You can use sign language(you can't talk because of all the gurgling blood in your throat) that you refuse to pay more than $100 for a new esophagus and if they can't give you a decent deal, you'll take your business elsewhere.

Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no serious thought.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Well there we go, if you're born in a poor neighbourhood, which means you'll likely have poor local services and low opportunities, which very much heightens your chances of remaining poor, and you can't afford the fees of a private medical system, nor the insurance that covers vital medical needs,

Well that's your neglectful fault for being born poor.

Amazing. I've raised 5 kids, and I was poor. Real, honest to goodness less than poverty. Way less. Guess what? We never let our kids be neglected or go through anything like this. I've even been in this situation. Guess what? Kids did not get systemic infections due to a neglected dental absess. Maybe what you need to do is stop making stupid strawman arguments.

Fascinating. How many black belts do you have.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Yeah. You can bleed out instead. You can let the tumor grow. You can use sign language(you can't talk because of all the gurgling blood in your throat) that you refuse to pay more than $100 for a new esophagus and if they can't give you a decent deal, you'll take your business elsewhere.

Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no serious thought.

Duh.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Nobody even bothered to verify that Obama is legitemately a citizen. No, not conspiracy talk.

It's true. Whether he's a citizen or not has never been investigated. Literally. NO PERSON ANYWHERE in the process did it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ob ... q=&aqi=g10

"Results 1 - 10 of about 29,000,000 for obama citizen" (emphasis mine)

Did you read what I said, or just make a knee jerk reaction?

Guess what? Knee-jerk was you.

"the process". Key words to pay attention to. You know, I actually say things that are true, relevant, and you have to READ AND PAY ATTENTION to what is said. Until you actually respond to WHAT IS SAID you cannot be anything but wrong.

First, from his first public office held, NOBODY has verified Obama's citizenship. Nobody. In each and every case, he has simply stated he's a citizen. No relevant BEAUROCRAT, elected or not, has ever required him to prove it, whether the law required him to or not.

Now, whether you care about the argument or not, it is a matter of law. What's far more troublesome... Is that not a single state required a single candidate for president, or any other office, to prove citizenship. Even though the law requires it. This is not an onerous burden. Yet, not a single one can be bothered to do their job.

And you're trying to tell me that the federal government and it's 1.8 million employees is both responsible and responsive to the public?

You are making a factual claim. One that Soheran's links prove false ad nauseum. Still, you persist in this claim and seem to think it important to your argument. Perhaps you might wish to provide a single scap of evidence that what you are saying is true.

Or continue to rant.

Your choice.