Advertisement
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:44 am
by Neu California » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:45 am
Neu California wrote:Opola wrote:11 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants who do not qualify for insurance
21.8 million are kids who choose not to have insurance but can afford it
Source?
by Treznor » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:46 am
Eugene Zolo wrote:Treznor wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:I am not talking about who deserves what, though many of these CEOs may have worked hard to get to where they are. I am saying that they make what they make and no one has the right to steal their money. You can say the poor don't have that much money so we should just steal from the rich, but you won't get me to agree with you.
Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.
So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?
What you described isn't stealing. I wasn't even saying anyone was stealing I was saying that you were advocating stealing.
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:46 am
Muravyets wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.
The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:46 am
Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.
So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:47 am
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.
The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:47 am
Eugene Zolo wrote:Treznor wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:
I am not talking about who deserves what, though many of these CEOs may have worked hard to get to where they are. I am saying that they make what they make and no one has the right to steal their money. You can say the poor don't have that much money so we should just steal from the rich, but you won't get me to agree with you.
Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.
So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?
What you described isn't stealing. I wasn't even saying anyone was stealing I was saying that you were advocating stealing.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:48 am
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.
The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Eugene Zolo » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:48 am
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:Do you see what's happening It's for the poor people you know the ones that carry america my mother and are poor and we can't afford healthcare but the repubs don't want to help cut the cost cause they care about the ceo's only it sucks
Firstly the majority of Americans ARE insured, and its the majority that carry America. The Republicans don't want to help cut cost, because they don't feel that someone else should be paying for your healthcare. Its not my job to pay for your healthcare and you have no right to steal money from me or any other American to pay for your health insurance. I feel bad that your mother is uninsured, but she is not my responsibility.
Funny how that seems to only apply to healthcare but not police, education of fire protection. How would you feel about crime insurance? Hmm? You know, in case you need the police to come to your house to stop a burglar. Of course, if you don;'t have insurance, the police can just bill you. How does that sound? Why should I pay to protect someone else's belongings? Not to mention that free market forces and competition can help make law enforcement work much more efficiently.
What about education? Why should I pay for some other kid's education? Hmm?
Isn't it amazing how the 'Why should I pay for someone else?" argument only seems to healthcare? You know, disease also spreads from the poor to the rich.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:49 am
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.
The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:49 am
Muravyets wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Ok. Well not ok, but we were not discussing your situation at the moment. We were saying how ILLEGAL immigrants should not be provided healthcare at the expense of American citizens.
Did anyone else read this as "I don't want to discuss legitimate reasons why we should have universal healthcare, I just want to initiate bigoted, sensational rants against immigrants."
*raises hand* I did.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:50 am
Eugene Zolo wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Funny how that seems to only apply to healthcare but not police, education of fire protection. How would you feel about crime insurance? Hmm? You know, in case you need the police to come to your house to stop a burglar. Of course, if you don;'t have insurance, the police can just bill you. How does that sound? Why should I pay to protect someone else's belongings? Not to mention that free market forces and competition can help make law enforcement work much more efficiently.
What about education? Why should I pay for some other kid's education? Hmm?
Isn't it amazing how the 'Why should I pay for someone else?" argument only seems to healthcare? You know, disease also spreads from the poor to the rich.
Education should be privatized. Police and Fire Department are different than healthcare. I would be for universal healthcare if I had a say in how everyone lives their life, if I could tell them what to eat, drink, inhale, etc.
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:51 am
Sibirsky wrote:
I am not anti immigration. I am an immigrant. I am anti ILLEGAL immigration. And I am anti taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants. I already said that the main problem is rapidly rising healthcare costs.
47 million uninsured.
9.4 million ILLEGAL immigrants
15.6 million make over $50,000 per year, they can afford their own coverage.
22 million uninsured
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:52 am
Surote wrote:Aha. Tell that to the 21% unemployed. The way the government calculates inflation, is flawed. They underestimate it by about 7%. They do it so A) they save money on those social security payouts that are indexed to the CPI. And B) it makes them look better. That being said, with GDP contracting by over 6% (which is adjusted for inflation) if you add the 7% they overestimate it by, than GDP contracted by over 13%. That is a depression. Most other economic data also shows a deep structural contraction. That is not a recession, it is a depression. Of course you can listen to the politicians who said it would be contained to a maximum of $100 billion in losses, $14 trillion in bailouts ago.
by Surote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:52 am
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:54 am
Muravyets wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Surote wrote:
One that's probably just a meeting of officals talkin plus only a 1,000 no very much and two were in a reccesion pal
Aha. Tell that to the 21% unemployed. The way the government calculates inflation, is flawed. They underestimate it by about 7%. They do it so A) they save money on those social security payouts that are indexed to the CPI. And B) it makes them look better. That being said, with GDP contracting by over 6% (which is adjusted for inflation) if you add the 7% they overestimate it by, than GDP contracted by over 13%. That is a depression. Most other economic data also shows a deep structural contraction. That is not a recession, it is a depression. Of course you can listen to the politicians who said it would be contained to a maximum of $100 billion in losses, $14 trillion in bailouts ago.
How're you doing on those links to those better health care reform plans? I'm seriously interested because I'm seriously desperate.
by New new nebraska » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:54 am
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:54 am
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:Eugene Zolo wrote:No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.
The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:57 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:57 am
Sibirsky wrote:I AM AN IMMIGRANT. BUT I AM LEGAL
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:59 am
Sibirsky wrote:Muravyets wrote:How're you doing on those links to those better health care reform plans? I'm seriously interested because I'm seriously desperate.
Haven't even started looking. I'll get to it. Eventually.
by The_pantless_hero » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:59 am
Sibirsky wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.
So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?
No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.
Bottle wrote:Equality is a slippery slope, people, and if you give it to the gays you have to give it to the polygamists and if you give it to the polygamists you have to give it to the serial dog molesters and if you give it to the serial dog molesters you have to give it to the machine fetishists and the next thing you know you're being tied up by a trio of polygamist lesbian powerbooks and you can't get out because the safety word is case sensistive!
by Muravyets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:00 pm
Sibirsky wrote:No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.
by Sibirsky » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:03 pm
The_pantless_hero wrote:Sibirsky wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?
No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.
Neither is not providing education, police, or military protection.
by Free Soviets » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:09 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:*sigh*
I'm not wading through the ideological bickering, so I'll just ask: Has anyone even tried to tie the actual language of the bill to the absurd allegations made in the OP and IBD editorial?
See, e.g., viewtopic.php?p=254703#p254703; viewtopic.php?p=254937#p254937
It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something, and we got some today. Here's a scary article from Investment Business Daily:blah blah blah
That sounds scary! It also sounds completely implausible. So I went and looked at the actual bill, and there that paragraph was, on p. 16, in a section defining the term "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". The fact that it's in a definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.
...
Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims: Instapundit (he updated after a reader pointed out his mistake), Meredith Jessup at Townhall, No Sheeples Here! (sic), Patterico, Gateway Pundit, theblogprof (sic), Ed Morrissey (he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool), Say Anything, Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Maggie's Farm, The Astute Bloggers (sic).
Since those claims are so obviously false to anyone who reads the actual bill, or even skims the relevant sections, I conclude that these bloggers did not bother to check them out before they posted. Which is to say: they didn't bother to do the most basic, rudimentary research that any blogger ought to do.
Tom Maguire, on the other hand, did, and spotted the mistake. Kudos.
This matters. One of the real mistakes many conservatives made, I think, was to dismiss people who disagreed with them. It's an easy thing to do: by definition, people who disagree with you say things that you think are false, and it's a short step from 'false' to 'obviously mendacious', 'intellectually irresponsible', 'flat-out insane', or something else that means that you just don't have to take the person in question seriously any more. If you want to keep yourself honest, you should listen to the people who disagree with you. But since life is short, it's nice to find an actual, objective test for things like intellectual irresponsibility, one that lets you just see that some people are, really and truly, intellectually irresponsible, and thus that you can dismiss them forever, and read them only for laughs, while saving your precious free time for others who deserve it more.
This is just such a test.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Caurus, Corporate Collective Salvation, Dumb Ideologies, Elejamie, Floofybit, Hypron, Kanora, Molchistan, Port Carverton, Tarsonis, The Web Citadel, Turenia, Valentine Z
Advertisement