TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Open Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-28-2009, 02:06 PM   #101
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,964
You know, more American's might be more inclined to pay for the health care of others, if the others took better care of themselves.

Subsidized health care in Europe is accepted because the general health of the people there is infinitely better. I don't want to pay for the obesity habits and problem of 3/4 overweight people in America. Or the smoking, or the alcohol....etc.

Until then, pay for your own diseases, and Iíll pay for mine.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2009, 03:34 PM   #102
Short Round
IndyFan
 
Short Round's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Valley of the Crescent Moon
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
You know, more American's might be more inclined to pay for the health care of others, if the others took better care of themselves.

Subsidized health care in Europe is accepted because the general health of the people there is infinitely better. I don't want to pay for the obesity habits and problem of 3/4 overweight people in America. Or the smoking, or the alcohol....etc.

Until then, pay for your own diseases, and Iíll pay for mine.

Exactly. We've led people to believe they can do nothing and STILL be paid. People have to take responsibility and make their OWN living. Why should I have to pay them??? Because they chose to do nothing with their lives??? This is the real problem. People should have to carry their own weight, but liberals and progressives don't want this. They want to distribute the wealth. They want to take from people who earn their money and give it to people who do NOTHING.
Short Round is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 03:44 PM   #103
Adam McDaniel
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Your invective against Obama is astounding in that you manage to equate him with socialists and fascists in the same breath; that's amazing. What's doubling astounding is that your link to The American Prospect ends up at a blog entry that's a paragraph in length, with links to a Wikipedia article and a defunct blog.

More reading material.

And so it begins -- the August Attack on Health Care Reform

E-mail 'Analysis' of Health Bill Needs a Check-up

The Guns of August


Consider: The august publication that is The Economist came out in favour of state sponsored health care. Why? It's good for the economy. Per them, 'our greatest strength is our entrepreneurship'; a lot of that has been killed over the years due to exorbitant health care costs. Where somebody might have been willing to try their hand at a business in the past, they are more inclined plod away where one of their major expenses is, in theory, covered.

One further point to consider, because these United States of America does it a certain way, doesn't mean that way is correct. Especially if the rest of the world does it differently.

For all your rants and raves, the Fox News Forum is this way.

Thank God there's at least ONE other progressive, believe-in-common-sense person on this forum. I was beginning to feel like a pilgrim in an unholy land.
Adam McDaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 04:02 PM   #104
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Not to get into a heated debate about this particular thread's topic, but I'm curious as to what is with the recent wave of Far Right/Ultra Conservative/Evangelical Christian posts and threads across The Raven? I've been posting and visiting this forum going on 4 years, and to be honest, I don't remember seeing so much of this rhetoric in the past. At the end of the day we are all allowed are opinions, but there seems to be a real trend as of late, in pushing these opinions on everyone here.

Granted this is the Open Discussion section, so all manners of topics are warranted, but this trend has been spilling over into so many other sections: General Indiana Jones Discussion, Films, Collecting, etc...

Anybody else notice this?
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 08:36 PM   #105
Adam McDaniel
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
Not to get into a heated debate about this particular thread's topic, but I'm curious as to what is with the recent wave of Far Right/Ultra Conservative/Evangelical Christian posts and threads across The Raven? I've been posting and visiting this forum going on 4 years, and to be honest, I don't remember seeing so much of this rhetoric in the past. At the end of the day we are all allowed are opinions, but there seems to be a real trend as of late, in pushing these opinions on everyone here.

Granted this is the Open Discussion section, so all manners of topics are warranted, but this trend has been spilling over into so many other sections: General Indiana Jones Discussion, Films, Collecting, etc...

Anybody else notice this?


Oh yes... Late last year, I had several heated exchanges about gay rights, and couldn't believe some of the things that were being said here. Granted, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and the right to express it, but the arguments and venom of some people frankly scared the sh!+ out of me.
Adam McDaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 09:32 PM   #106
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam McDaniel
Oh yes... Late last year, I had several heated exchanges about gay rights, and couldn't believe some of the things that were being said here. Granted, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, and the right to express it, but the arguments and venom of some people frankly scared the sh!+ out of me.
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone!

Yeah, some of the outright bigoted comments being thrown around are pretty shocking.
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 10:26 PM   #107
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone!

Yeah, some of the outright bigoted comments being thrown around are pretty shocking.
But, while I'm not saying that you are doing this, it's important to not group the bigots in with everyone who leans right on some issues.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2009, 11:41 PM   #108
Short Round
IndyFan
 
Short Round's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Valley of the Crescent Moon
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
But, while I'm not saying that you are doing this, it's important to not group the bigots in with everyone who leans right on some issues.

I love how everyone tries to call people on the right bigots. It really just shows their bigotry. They are usually the ones tying to limit people's freedom of speech because they don't want to hear people with differing opinions.
Short Round is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 03:51 AM   #109
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,950
It would be good to keep in mind that term "bigotry" is not tied to any political ideals or only certain religions (or, to the lack of them). Anyone who aggressively promotes his or her lifestyle and refuses to give any credit to the differing opinions can be labeled as such.

While I'd never attempt to deny that there is no reason for concern, some solace can be drawn from the fact that not censoring opinions from any side of the argument can be viewed as an indication that at least the people monitoring these discussions have the tolerance for all kinds shtick flown around despite personally leaning towards one direction or another.

Still, I must state that publicly displaying these concerns is a can of worms I'd prefer to keep closed. If one feels a need to discuss these matters, a preferable method would be opening up a private channel to a moderator of choice. Mostly because the public approach tends to generate heat that is difficult to ignore, which usually leads to stupid crap that gets discussions closed and people banned... with plenty of collateral damage.
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2009, 08:52 AM   #110
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
But, while I'm not saying that you are doing this, it's important to not group the bigots in with everyone who leans right on some issues.
I absolutely agree! It just happens I've seen more 'bigoted' comments coming from the right as of late, as opposed to the left. I don't visit every thread on the forum, so I'm sure there's plenty I've missed out on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Short Round
I love how everyone tries to call people on the right bigots.
Once again, I would like to clarify, I do not think all people who lean to the right with their political and religious beliefs are bigots! Like I said in my previous post, I've just seen a disproportionate amount of 'bigoted' comments coming from those with affiliation to the far right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
It would be good to keep in mind that term "bigotry" is not tied to any political ideals or only certain religions (or, to the lack of them). Anyone who aggressively promotes his or her lifestyle and refuses to give any credit to the differing opinions can be labeled as such.

While I'd never attempt to deny that there is no reason for concern, some solace can be drawn from the fact that not censoring opinions from any side of the argument can be viewed as an indication that at least the people monitoring these discussions have the tolerance for all kinds shtick flown around despite personally leaning towards one direction or another.

Still, I must state that publicly displaying these concerns is a can of worms I'd prefer to keep closed. If one feels a need to discuss these matters, a preferable method would be opening up a private channel to a moderator of choice. Mostly because the public approach tends to generate heat that is difficult to ignore, which usually leads to stupid crap that gets discussions closed and people banned... with plenty of collateral damage.
Point taken!

I've really been pretty mute on the subject, steering clear of virtually all the debates that deal with religion/politics (the big hot button issues), but as of late I've noticed more and more of certain types of comments, creeping into other areas of the forum. Maybe I should have taken another route of displaying my concerns?
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 05:33 AM   #111
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Been quite a while... Are you writing a book, Madame Saboteur?

...um, no. I am involved in this: Noel Coward's Brief Encounter, and The Caucasian Chalk Circle.

Right now I am uninterested in pursuing the topic. I do, however, owe you an answer on the the issue of lowering the tax burden on the uninsured. That'll be forthcoming.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 05:31 PM   #112
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
...um, no.
That was sarcasm, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Right now I am uninterested in pursuing the topic. I do, however, owe you an answer on the the issue of lowering the tax burden on the uninsured. That'll be forthcoming.
Relieving the tax burden not good enough for you?
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 12:23 AM   #113
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillKill4Food
Relieving the tax burden not good enough for you?

It's a red herring. If nothing else were to change aside from lowering the tax burden on the uninsured, it's still unaffordable. For example, this girl went to the emergency room for an undisclosed abdominal pain. It turned out to be a harmless ovarian cyst that went away on its own. Total cost: $8,500, most of which was a CT scan.

You could argue over the validity of the test, and whether or not the patient should be more informed, but the bill's the bill: it must be paid. No college-age student can bear that kind of burden, and if daddy wants to welsh on the bill, then your taxes go up indirectly. Emergency rooms charge you, and bankruptcy doesn't go away; that debt gets spread throughout society via an increase in taxes.

Assume you need multiple MRIs; at about $2,000 a go, that's going to quickly add up. Childbirth in a hospital? Forget about it. The average bottom rung estimate I found is about $10,000, on up to $35,000 and change. Better start saving now. I have found reports that state it still costs $3-to-$6-thousand with insurance.

If my own personal tax burden was reduced to zero (which would never happen), then I would have about $11,000 extra, maybe slightly more. Even with that extra income, I would a.) never have it at once and b.) could afford one or two common medical procedures. If you need something really serious? Well, excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

If however, my premiums were suddenly non-existent, I would have about $5,000 (I think). Without the need to have it lying around just in case I break my leg, that's money I can pump back into the economy through consumerism. Or, I can save it via a 401k/savings account/whatever. With extra money for retirement, the need to draw on Social Security benefits is diminished, and in some cases, erased.


Nobody here has thought systematically about this, especially the originators of this thread; they've sought to capture the field with twaddle. You can call it an opinion, but I call it gibberish. If it cannot stand up to harsh criticism, it isn't a truthful position. The salient facts: 1.) The constitution has language already written into that give Congress the power to establish what it needs; 2.) The Founding Fathers were not some homogeneous body; they were gentleman farmers schooled in law, who read Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke & Hobbes; 3.) The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter, and it is not a perversion of American Democracy. To suggest otherwise is to not be as well versed in one's own government as they might think. It's entirely a legislative matter.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 09-03-2009 at 12:48 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 12:45 AM   #114
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
Not to get into a heated debate about this particular thread's topic, but I'm curious as to what is with the recent wave of Far Right/Ultra Conservative/Evangelical Christian posts and threads across The Raven?

Anybody else notice this?

I wondered that myself. It makes a certain amount of sense though, considering just how many people think it would be really cool if Indy kept going after Christian artifacts, and walloping Nazis.

On a broader social spectrum, it's the desperate thrashings of a politically neutered party. Without bonafide leadership, the Republican party has been commandeered by a vocal minority of the Far Right.

An honest-to-goodness Republican leader might just remember that Richard M. Nixon, the last real Republican president wanted to see national health care for all citizens. You can read his full address to Congress here, Nixon's Special Message to the Congress on Health Care.

Here's part of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard M. Nixon
To the Congress of the United States:

An all-directions reform of our health care system--so that every citizen will be able to get quality health care at reasonable cost regardless of income and regardless of area of residence--remains an item of highest priority on my unfinished agenda for America in the 1970s.

In the ultimate sense, the general good health of our people is the foundation of our national strength, as well as being the truest wealth that individuals can possess.

Nothing should impede us from doing whatever is necessary to bring the best possible health care to those who do not now have it--while improving health care quality for everyone--at the earliest possible time.

In 1971, I submitted to the Congress my new National Health Strategy which would produce the kind of health care Americans desire and deserve, at costs we all can afford.

Since that time, a great national debate over health care has taken place. And both branches of the Congress have conducted searching examinations of our health needs, receiving and studying testimony from all segments of our society.

The Congress has acted on measures advancing certain parts of my National Health Strategy:

--The Comprehensive Health Manpower Training Act of 1971 and the Nurse Training Act of 1971, which I signed last November, will spur the greatest effort in our history to expand the supply of health personnel. Additionally and importantly, it will attract them to the areas of health care shortages, helping to close one of the most glaring gaps in our present system.

--The Congress also passed the National Cancer Act which I proposed last year. This action opens the way for a high-intensity effort to defeat the No. 2 killer and disabler of our time, an effort fueled by an additional $100 million in the last year. A total of $430 million is budgeted for cancer programs in fiscal year 1973, compared to $185 million in fiscal year 1969.

--The Congress responded to my statement of early 1970 on needed improvements in veterans medical care by authorizing increased funds in 1971 and 1972, increases which have brought the V^ hospital-to-patient ratios to an all-time high and have provided many additional specialty and medical services, including increased medical manpower training.

--The Congress also created a National Health Service Corps of young professionals to serve the many rural areas and inner city neighborhoods which are critically short on health care. By mid-summer, more than 100 communities around the Nation will be benefiting from these teams.

These are important steps, without doubt, but we still must lay the bedrock foundations for a new national health care system for all our people.

The need for action is critical for far too many of our citizens.
The time for action is now.

I therefore again urge the Congress to act on the many parts of my health care program which are still pending so that we can end--at the earliest possible time-the individual anguishes, the needless neglects and the family financial fears caused by the gaps, inequities and maldistributions of the present system.

The United States now spends more than $75 billion annually on health care--and for most people, relatively good service results.

Yet, despite this huge annual national outlay, millions of citizens do not have adequate access to health care. Our record in this field does not live up to our national potential.

That sobering fact should summon us to prompt but effective action to reform and reorganize health care practices, while simultaneously resisting the relentless inflation of health care costs.

MORE THAN MONEY IS NEEDED

When the subject of health care improvements is mentioned, as is the case with so many other problems, too many people and too many institutions think first and solely of money--bills, payments, premiums, converges, grants, subsidies and appropriations.

But far more than money is involved in our current health care crisis.

More money is important--but any attempted health care solution based primarily on money is simply not going to do the job.

In health care as in so many other areas, the most expensive remedy is not necessarily the most effective one.

One basic shortcoming of a solution to health care problems which depends entirely on spending more money, can be seen in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicare and Medicaid did deliver needed dollars to the health care problems of the elderly and the poor. But at the same time, little was done to alter the existing supply and distribution of doctors, nurses, hospitals and other health resources. Our health care supply, in short, remained largely the same while massive new demands were loaded onto it.

The predictable result was an acute price inflation, one basic cause of our health economic quandary of the past 11 years.

In this period, national health expenditures rose by 188 percent, from $26 billion in fiscal 1960 to $75 billion in fiscal 1971. But a large part of this enormous increase in the Nation's health expenditure went, not for more and better health care, but merely to meet price inflation.

If we do not lessen this trend, all other reform efforts may be in vain.

That is why my National Health Strategy was designed with built-in incentives to encourage sensible economies--in the use of health facilities, in direct cost-control procedures, and through more efficient ways to bring health care to people at the community level. That is also why we have given careful attention to medical prices in Phase II of the Economic Stabilization Program.

Several months ago, the Price Commission ruled that increases in physician fees must be kept to within 2 1/2 percent. Rules also were issued to hold down runaway price increases among hospitals, nursing homes and other health care institutions. All of these efforts were directed toward our goal of reducing the previous 7.7 percent annual price increase in total health care costs to half of that level, 3.85 percent this year.

These actions should buy us some time. But they are, at best, a temporary tourniquet on health care price inflation.

We must now direct our energies, attentions and action to the long-range factors affecting the cost, the quality and the availability of medical care.

My overall program, of course, is one that would improve health care for everyone. But it is worthy of special note that these recommendations have a particular importance and a high value for older Americans, whose health care needs usually rise just as their incomes are declining.

WE SHOULD BUILD ON PRESENT STRENGTHS

When we examine the status of health care in America, we always must be careful to recognize its strengths. For most Americans, more care of higher quality has been the result of our rising national investment in health, both governmental and private.

We lead the world in medical science, research and development. We have obliterated some major diseases and drastically reduced the incidence of others. New institutions, new treatments and new drugs abound. There has been a marked and steady gain in the number of people covered by some form of health insurance to 84 percent of those under 65, and coverages have been expanding. Life expectancy has risen by 3.4 percent since 1950 and the maternal death rate has declined 66 percent. Days lost from work in the same period are down 3.5 percent and days lost from school have declined 7.5 percent--both excellent measures of the general good state of our health.

All of this is progress--real progress. It would be folly to raze the structure that produced this progress--and start from scratch on some entirely new basis-in order to repair shortcomings and redirect and revitalize the thrust of our health system.

To nationalize health care as some have proposed, and thus federalize medical personnel, institutions and procedures-eventually if not at the start-also would amount to a stunning new financial burden for every American taxpayer.

The average household would pay more than $1,000 a year as its share of the required new Federal expenditure of more than $80 billion each and every year. Such a massive new Federal budget item would run counter to the temper of the American taxpayer.

Also, such a massive new Federal budget item would run counter to the efforts of this Administration to decentralize programs and revenues, rather than bring new responsibilities to Washington.

But there will be no support from the G.O.P. on this issue; they're more than content to send the country down the hole in order to keep the Obama Administration limited to one term.

Furthermore, where's the so-called compromise if the left is doing all the compromising?
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 12:59 AM   #115
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
the recent wave of Far Right/Ultra Conservative/Evangelical Christian posts and threads across The Raven
This sounds a little paranoid. In defense of the average Ravener, I feel I should ask you to provide some variety of links. (Not that we're going to race around sterilizing the place).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam McDaniel
several heated exchanges about gay rights ...
the arguments and venom of some people frankly scared the sh!+ out of me.
I recall you started a thread outraged about a randomly generated election season Prop 8 banner ad, since you probably live in California. There was some scary venom on the streets, for sure... a regular anti-Mormon Cristal-nacht. (Hollywood drinks Cristal, get it?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey
There's been a lot of flatulence on this thread thus far
More scatology. Sigh.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 01:36 AM   #116
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,970
One final thought...

...on the issue of taxes. Everything suggested here thus far has assumed that the tax burden will be shifted to the individual when it doesn't have to be the case. It's a well established fact that Corporations use a bevy of tax loopholes to defraud State & Federal government out of approximately $100-billion a year. California & Texas combined lose about $20-billion. By closing the holes in the corporate tax structure, there's one-trillion bucks over a ten-year period. Currently that burden is shifted to the individual tax-payer. There's an excellent, if dated, overview here.

Our defense budget is to the tune of a cool trillion, divided almost evenly between the Armed Forces and defense-related issues (i.e., nuclear warhead maintenance & protection). This does not include the discretionary spending for the situations in Iraq & Afghanistan. Estimates put the current cost at $1.9-trillion through end-of-year '09. Others think it'll be around $3-trillion.

A trillion dollars is a bloated budget in today's global environment. Line items could be easily crossed out of that budget.

F/A-18 E/F
Total Program cost: $90-billion
Potential Savings: $90-billion

Note: Cancel F/A-18 E/F. Navy should support the transition direct to Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 variant if required from a joint perspective.

F-22
Total Program Cost: $75-billion
Potential Savings: $20-billion

Note: Reduce F-22 buy to 300. Replace F-15's on a capability basis (for example, two F-22's replace 3 F-15's, rather than a one-for-one platform exchange).

Crusader Artillery System
Total Program Cost: $3-to-$5-billion
Potential Savings: $3-billion

Note: Postpone the Crusader 155-millimeter advanced artillery system until the liquid propellant works effectively. Also, the system weighs nearly 70 tons, which unnecessarily stresses strategic mobility requirements and battlefield evacuation.

AAAV
Total Program Cost: >$6-billion +
Potential Savings: $6-billion +

Note: Cancel the Armored Amphibious Assault Vehicle. Given the trendlines in military affairs, why should U.S. forces ever attempt an opposed amphibious landing? The USMC is proposing to procure over 1,000 AAAV. The Inchon paradigm is bankrupt given precision weapons and safer, alternative means of delivering Marines to the battlefield. The AAAV is early 1980 technology being considered for fielding in 2009. Clearly, the United States can do better with newer Information Age technology. It makes more sense to employ the V-22. Also, the USMC can employ LCACs to carry LAVs, AGS, and other systems ashore much faster and in much higher sea states.

I could go on, but that's a bunch of money "found" right there. It's going to come down to where your priorities lie; the economy is rapidly changing, and as more and more manufacturing dries up, the number of people without insurance is going to increase. There's something to be said for personal accountability, but the test of a progressive policy is public, not private. It means opportunity for all, not just rising income and consumption for individuals. The government needs to stand equidistant from all groups, and provide for each equally no matter what partisan politics you may have.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 09-03-2009 at 01:50 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 02:26 AM   #117
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,970
The American...

...Journal of Medicine put out this report last month. It takes a look at national records, and found that 62.1% of all bankruptcies were medical related, and 92% of these were with bills greater than $5,000, or 10% of total pretax family income. Compared to 2001, that's a 49.6% increase. 78% of that 92% were insured, but their plans did not meet the needs.

Average out-of-pocket medical expenses for both insured and uninsured: $17,943.

All current trends suggest this is going to continue.

Full report is available, here.

You can also find the current report on the Tax Shell game, here.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 09-03-2009 at 02:44 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 11:08 PM   #118
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
It's a red herring. If nothing else were to change aside from lowering the tax burden on the uninsured, it's still unaffordable.
As you may have noted, I did not insist that this was the only thing that needs to change. Rather I was asking, somewhat facetiously, why that attempting to relieve the tax burden is not a good way of, in your words, "lowering the tax burden."

Senator Corker, for instance, supports helping families afford healthcare through refundable tax credits and changing the tax code to limit tax benefits for Cadillac health care plans, which are not taxed.

I don't have much time to write a lengthy post, but on the topic of the public option, can you please explain to me why that I, as a large corporation, am going to provide health insurance to my employees when they can get government-funded health insurance? And as an insurance company that works for a profit, how could I compete with the government's program that is paid for with other people's money?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
Nobody here has thought systematically about this, especially the originators of this thread; they've sought to capture the field with twaddle. ... To suggest otherwise is to not be as well versed in one's own government as they might think. It's entirely a legislative matter.
For the record, I have not once attempted to defend the originators of this thread. That's their job, not mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
It's a well established fact that Corporations use a bevy of tax loopholes to defraud State & Federal government out of approximately $100-billion a year.
So tie a legal knot in the proverbial loopholes. Instead of creating a new program that we can't pay for, why not just change the existing law to prevent such sophistry?

As for your litany of government "wasteful" spending iniquities, I have to wonder why that you think the government will be any less prodigal with health insurance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
...no matter what partisan politics you may have.

Why isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? You're the one whose views have followed a party's talking points. I'm just asking questions. I would hate to think of myself as a Republican, as myopic as they tend to be.

And, as a side note, you still haven't explained why you felt that my AP Government score was inflated. I don't agree with you, so I can't be intelligent? I suppose we should revoke Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize, then?
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 07:27 AM   #119
WillKill4Food
IndyFan
 
WillKill4Food's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New York City, the Big Apple
Posts: 1,508
Oh, and I neglected to mention this yesterday, because I couldn't find the clip I was looking for.

Many who oppose the bill are proposing that we really need tort reform before we can make health care affordable, but, according to Howard Dean, it was left out of the bill because they didn't want opposition from trial lawyers as well.

So, am I wrong in asserting that our elected officials care less about appeasing the people who elected them than appeasing lawyers?

Source.
WillKill4Food is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2009, 07:47 AM   #120
monkey
Guest
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
I'm not really sure what this thread is about anymore.

No offense, but people should limit their posts to a few sentences that sum up what they want to say.

Fact is, these loooooooooooong posts, between two people, tend to dilute the whole thread to the point that no one wants to post anymore.

Let's get off of our individual "Intellectual" High Horses, and TALK about this subject again.

OK??
monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 03:28 AM   #121
monkey
Guest
 
monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Sorry for the double post.

But I need to apologize for my last post.

There was no call for that.

Once again, misdirected anger.
monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 02:49 PM   #122
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
Not to get into a heated debate about this particular thread's topic, but I'm curious as to what is with the recent wave of Far Right/Ultra Conservative/Evangelical Christian posts and threads across The Raven?

Anybody else notice this?

Yes. And it doesn't require you posting a string of threads as evidence to make this point, despite what a certain mod might think. They're a bunch of angry little bigots trying to scream louder than the rest of us because they're slowly becoming marginalized and forgotten, both on this board and in society in general.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 03:19 PM   #123
Nurhachi1991
IndyFan
 
Nurhachi1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pankot Palace
Posts: 4,771
I'm beggining to think Obama is not the bad guy after all it's the Republicans there mad that they lost and there going to try to bash Obama every chance they get.



Like that school speech he gave. Was it necessary start all that crap?
Nurhachi1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 03:37 PM   #124
deckard24
IndyFan
 
deckard24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by HovitosKing
Yes. And it doesn't require you posting a string of threads as evidence to make this point, despite what a certain mod might think. They're a bunch of angry little bigots trying to scream louder than the rest of us because they're slowly becoming marginalized and forgotten, both on this board and in society in general.
Yeah to be honest I wasn't quite sure what to make of that, considering I had taken Finn's advice only a few posts prior, and decided not to stoke the fire any further. So to literally turn around and start pointing fingers, would only exacerbate the situation. Sure, I could start providing links to threads, in fact some of the very comments I'm talking about popped up only the other day, but I'll leave it up to the mods to blow the whistle, if they feel some are taking their proseltyzing a bit too far!
deckard24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2009, 04:14 PM   #125
HovitosKing
IndyFan
 
HovitosKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
...but I'll leave it up to the mods to blow the whistle, if they feel some are taking their proseltyzing a bit too far!

lol good luck with that.
HovitosKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.