I Got My Health Insurance so Why Should I Care About You?
Posted by Joe Rivett on 11.24.2009
How having mono made me reflect on the current health care bill…
November has been a hellacious month for me. At the end of October, I developed a sinus infection. Saw my doctor and got me some strong antibiotics. One week later I had a major cough. No big deal. I toughed it out and didn't even miss work. After the cough went away, I would get random fevers. Certain days my bones would ache. Other days I'd have a headache. Some days I felt totally fine. Other days I woke up in a sea of sweat. On 11/19, I woke up in the middle of the night and threw up 3 times. I took off from work to see my doctor. They thought I had strep throat and once again I was on an antibiotic. By the weekend I couldn't swallow soup. I called my doctor Sunday and she phoned in a script for steroids to reduce swelling.
I woke up Monday even worse. I went in to see my doctor. As I'm in the waiting room I watch people pay their co-pays. Twenty-five bucks just to see a Primary Care Physician, wow! Thank God mine is only ten considering this will be my third time here in a month. By the time I see my PCP, She thinks I have some sort of abscess in my throat and she refers me to an ENT doctor. What the hell is an abscess? I've never seen a doctor other than my PCP; I wonder what my co-pay will be for a specialist? It turns out that my wife's plan is awesome, ten bucks! Two hours later he rubs my neck and tells me I probably have mono.
"But I'm 28," I say "And I can't sleep, doesn't mono make you feel tired." I guess not everyone gets really fatigued. Anyway, it needs to be confirmed by a blood test and I need some steroids IVed into me so that my tonsils do not suffocate me. He gives me the option of going to an Urgent Care center or the ER. I choose Urgent Care because it will probably be faster and cheaper. I was right but this time the co-pay was more than 10 bucks, it was 35. Happy Thanksgiving Joe, you have mono! And your best friend you paid 300 bucks for to fly up for the holiday is not going to have as much fun as you hoped. I get a script of Lortab and go home. I notify work that I will be missing the next five days which means I will soon be off for 7 straight days. Thank goodness my job gives me 26 vacation days a year. So here are my medical bills for the past month:
Oh, and I have follow ups with the ENT and PCP scheduled for next week = 20 bucks.
This month has cost me over 100 bucks in co-pays alone. Not bad considering how many doctors I saw. The real reason I got off so well is because my wife is a teacher. Had it been the insurance plan my company offers it would have cost me…
75 PCP, 40 for ENT, 40 Urgent Care, Drugs 90, Follow-ups 65 for a grand total of:
310 bucks… And do not forget that this doesn't include a monthly premium of a couple hundred dollars. Not horrible but significantly more than the wifey's plan.
Let's say that I worked for a small business which had 100 employees that didn't offer insurance to select. I went online for a quote. I figure it can't be that much for a healthy 28 year-old… I was wrong.
First, the PCP and ENT aren't covered unless I'm pregnant. Really? The drugs are cheap at 10 bucks a pop. Urgent care isn't mentioned so I would have to use an ER for 50 bucks. Let me also tell you that the insurance would cost me over 300 bucks a month and that doesn't even cover a PCP!
And this is where the problem lies. Many of you don't have to deal with the nightmare of not having insurance or being drastically uninsured. Five years ago I was unemployed and took a job at a pizzeria to make some money until I found a better job. Under the Democrats plan my mother could have kept me on her insurance as I was 23. Or maybe I could have bought into the insurance exchanges/public option. Or maybe my boss would have received credits to help him offer insurance to me.
It could be so easy for me to denounce health insurance reform. I got mine and it's a union plan! Screw the rest of you! Maybe it was my humble upbringing but I don't want people to be a sick as I am right now and not have the coverage and advantages I have. I'm so lucky to have a job that will pay me while I'm sick. I'm so lucky to have a wife that is a teacher. I feel so lucky that I want others to share in my advantages. Maybe it was my Catholic upbringing or my healthy conscience but I care about people. If it means I have to pay a little more or wait another day to be seen so that people can be taken care of so be it, because one day I may not be so lucky.
I might lose my job or my wife or both. If my wife changes a job then the next insurance company can claim pre-existing conditions. I heard one company claimed an underweight baby as a pre-existing condition on the Today Show. Shit, my baby is underweight and anemic. I also have a father who is self-employed. I worry about his health care. It's bad enough he has to pay double for Social Security and Medicare. If it wasn't for the state insurance plan, he would be broke paying for his own health care. If it wasn't for socialized medicine, my cousins would be out of luck.
If you want to object to the reform then that's fine, there are a few reforms I object to as well. But before you object put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate or put yourself in the shoes of you when shit hits the fan. Yeah, maybe an illegal immigrant will find a loophole but maybe an American could have better health, no fear of bankruptcy and a better quality of life.
"It's bad enough he has to pay double for Social Security and Medicare. If it wasn't for the state insurance plan, he would be broke paying for his own health care."
These two lines kind of undermine your argument and summarize what's wrong with the whole situation. Two costly government programs cost your father so much that he is dependent upon another government program. Twisted circle.
But you know, social security reform and medicare reform are less important than flushing more money down the entitlement sink hole and creating more dependency.
To quote Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!!!"
Posted By: The Squid Was Right! (Guest) on November 23, 2009 at 11:59 PM
I pray to God that this is signed into law. When the Republicans try to kill it, that will be the death nail for that political party. This will be another opportunity to kill remove those moronic Dixiecrats that occupy the upper echelon of the Republican Party.
If you don't believe me about the Dixiecrats, then why are the Republicans no longer the fiscal conservative party? They were absorbed by the Republican Party. They haven't been a fiscal conservative party since Ronald Reagan won his first nomination.
Posted By: Guest#2942 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 12:47 AM
I'm all for cutting all government benefits and going back to some sort of frontier environment where we don't pay taxes and are all on our own.
But that is pretty much against the civilization we have now. We DO have these programs and these benefits because we feel we are more advanced because of them, and when it comes down to it, health care is probably the absolute most important factor in a successful civilization. Well, I mean you have to eat and have a roof over your head, but if you're dying of disease that kind of abrogates those needs anyway.
It's funny how people are talking about paying for these things as if they have control over what they pay in taxes and it'd be reduced without it. Nah, everything is always going to go up, the government will never cut programs and give you your money back, once they take it, it's gone and you don't have any say in it.
Not that many people are going to be paying taxes at the rate that this recession is going anyway though.
Posted By: Guest#8747 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 01:00 AM
Free stuff rules! Yay Democrats!
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 05:51 AM
The real question is, how the HELL did you get mono?!
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 06:35 AM
thank god i live in the UK. free dentistry and doctors is a life saver.
Posted By: pb (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 06:43 AM
I would argue squid that b/c my dad is self-employed, he is going to need Medicare when he's 65 and since he has very little saved, social security is going to make sure I don't have to bail his ass out. Also as a self employed man, he can write off anything so he pays almost no income taxes.
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 07:53 AM
I'll just repost what I stated in a previous column:
Nice to see how you forgot to mention that there are still plenty of loopholes, which allow full tax-payer-paid insurance for ILLEGALS, 10's of millions STILL uninsured, higher taxes, you still can't get your prescriptions from across state or country lines, it does nothing to regulate the cost of prescription drugs or medical supplies, and China has already said they're not going to help us pay for this. The Fed, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the rest of these idiots are purposefully trying to collapse the economy!
True health reform comes with ZERO extra costs!
It should consist of:
Regulations on the prices of medications and medical supplies (brings down overall cost and cuts price gouging which has gone on far too long).
The ability to cross state/country borders for medications, etc. (This will force the "pharms" to be more competitive -- Competition is what drives a free market and lower prices).
Provide tax CREDITS, not tax INCREASES to employers.
And finally, it would not, would not, WOULD NOT provide one single cent to the illegals who care so much about our country, that they can't even follow or respect our laws. If you want things to get better, march down your own damn streets to your own damn capitol, and bitch out your own damn leaders!
Simple, cheap, and effective. Debate over.
PS The Dems and Reps can go take a long walk off a short pier! Since 2002, they've more than doubled the official national debt. Of course, when you count the money that the Fed has stolen, it skyrockets from $12.2 trillion to around $106+ trillion!
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Ill keep this short and sweet because this country has devolved to a point where a large chunk of the populus is so blindly partsan that common sense no longer registers. All reasonable Americans can agree that something needs to be done to fix healthcare, there's no arguement there. This massive tax and entitlement sinkhole is not the answer though. Putting our goverment, who most of the time I wouldn't trust with a paintball gun in charge of 20% of the the U.S. economy is not the answer. I'm not gonna go and make lists of alternative means of help, or make a list of the consequences Obamacare could/will bring. 20% of the economy under direct goverment control should cause enough pause for concern. That massive amount of goverment control pretty much guarantees us all an economic and beauracratic nightmare until the end of time. We all need to stop and see the forrest through the trees.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM
"If you want to object to the reform then that's fine, there are a few reforms I object to as well. But before you object put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate or put yourself in the shoes of you when shit hits the fan."
I really believe a lot of people are incapable of doing either of those things. We have seen the very concept of empathy vilified. I've known too many people whose life planning indicates they can't think beyond the moment they're in right now. Not because they live paycheck to paycheck, but because they seem to think tomorrow will never come.
The masses have to wait until the levees break before they acknowledge that serious action is needed. It would sure be nice if a calamity wasn't required to ever do anything of consequence. Would George Washington be so revered if England had been cool about our breakup? Would Lincoln even be remembered had there never been slavery to begin with? FDR without the Great Depression? And so it goes. Major health care reform could be a rare instance where we are proactive rather than reactive. I wonder who will be President when these wholly inadequate reforms fail to curb skyrocketing costs and the system is about to bankrupt us. That's who will have the next opportunity to be a historic figure.
Sorry about your health troubles, Joe, but I'm glad you reject the I got mine theory.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM
It's not fair that some people have all four limbs while others don't. Let's pass an amendment to the bill that enforces amputation based on the weighted average number of limbs per person. If the average is found to be 3.5 or below, everybody must lose an arm or a leg "to make it fair". This weighted average figure will be computed by some unelected bureaucrats making centralized decisions in a far away place, but they will be so smart that nothing can possibly go wrong with what they decree, so we will all be better off to abdictae our own decision making for their wise proclomations.
That's liberal health care in a nutshell. Rather than invest in prosthetics to ELEVATE those who have less, they seek to bring everyone down to the level of the average "least" afflicted because that's more cost effcient than allowing "evil" medical device companies develop stuff from which they might profit (and help millions).
Your liberal plans HAVE made health care access worse in this country and your Senate Plan, if passed, will finish the job Medicaid and Medicare started 40 years ago of leading us down the road of rationed care and less quality care.
All because you need to "feel good about yourself" with no understanding of where these "good intentions" without accountability have led us these last 60 years of the New deal/Great Society massive shift to the left. WAKE UP. Remove the thrid party payers between patients and their doctors for all but the most serious conditions and watch health care access and quality skyrocket in this country for everyone. Instead, you would have us head down the road where EVERYBODY sinks to the lowest common denominator of care because at least "that's fair". Unreal.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:27 AM
"...so Why Should I Care About You."
Frankly. I don't. I busted my ass to get where I am today and I don't feel one bit of empathy for someone who hasn't.
Posted By: Guest#9032 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Your PCP diagnosed strep throat without doing any blood work? She diagnosed you having an abscess, strep throat but didn't test for mono? Then your ENT felt your glands and thought you had mono?
A course of blood work would have taken a good deal of the guess work out of your experience. Get another doctor.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:44 AM
"But you know, social security reform and medicare reform are less important than flushing more money down the entitlement sink hole and creating more dependency."
Actually, the original house bill did have an auditing system to eliminate Medicare fraud (60+ billion/year), but that's where the freakouts about "death panels" and "bureaucrats" came in. Blame Republicans on that one.
"The Fed, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and the rest of these idiots are *purposefully* trying to collapse the economy!"
To what end?
"Regulations on the prices of medications and medical supplies (brings down overall cost and cuts price gouging which has gone on far too long).
"The ability to cross state/country borders for medications, etc. (This will force the "pharms" to be more competitive -- Competition is what drives a free market and lower prices)."
The liberal wing of the Democratic party wants to do this. President Obama has undercut them with his "deal," though. Also, the Democrats have introduced legislation to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, which would eliminate insurance's anti-trust exemption.
"Provide tax CREDITS, not tax INCREASES to employers."
The bill provides affordability credits to small businesses. You don't seem to be tying them to anything, though. What's to keep the businesses from just pocketing the tax credit?
Would you also repeal EMTALA, so that no one is guaranteed medical treatment if they go to an emergency room? That seems to be the only way to eliminate fully the problem of illegal immigrants getting healthcare.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 01:01 PM
"Ill keep this short and sweet because this country has devolved to a point where a large chunk of the populus is so blindly partsan that common sense no longer registers."
I was with you until you followed this with a blindly partisan rant.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on November 24, 2009 at 01:03 PM
We all need to stop and see the forrest through the trees.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I'm looking, but Forrest Griffin is hiding pretty good among those trees.
Posted By: DeeRayMoore (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 01:30 PM
@Jason, great point about empathy. I work at a place that helps provides childcare assistance for low income families and a coworker of mine that sits right next to me will actually tell the person watching the children to "get a real job". I'm sorry, but if you are providing a service for money, that, by definition, is a "real job". I would tell her this, but she is the boss's pet, and I would be written up. I think Three Dog Night said it best. "Easy to be Hard"
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 02:14 PM
gbh1978,
I'm wondering, where did you get that 20% number from? I dunno, that just doesn't sound like a plausible estimate
Posted By: Jevysan (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 02:31 PM
How about this-- privatize EVERY industry that's currently socialized: police, fire departments, mail carriers and see how long you like that. Then those "dead beats" (i.e. people poorer than you...) will learn by having their houses burned down and their mail tossed in a sewer!
Posted By: Guest#1685 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 03:08 PM
Empathy is something the Republican party and conservatives in general have a problem with. It's why Dick Cheney is the ultimate conservative - until it comes to gay rights, since he has a gay daughter who'd like to get married someday. Sadly for the rest of us who actually do attempt to understand what other people have to go through, not every conservative will have health issues while uninsured - especially not those in Congress, who get taxpayer-paid-for healthcare for life.
Spyke is a perfect example. No empathy, and completed disconnected from reality. But like Sarah Palin, if you say something that makes it true, so there's no point in trying to correct all of the things you're mistaken about.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Dunn my man, actually I'm quite the eclectic moderate. I'm quite conservative on defense/economic issues but quite liberal on social issues. So the Obamacare issue becomes quite the quandry for me. I find myself weighing my compassion against the implications. In the end I can only call it as I see it based on common sense. I don't see anything remotely partisan about my feelings or what I had to say. Judging by your reaction though perhaps the blind partisan is looking at you in the mirror?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Its not an estimate. Going by everything I've ever read or heard on the matter healtcare and everything it constitutes accounts for roughly 20% of the U.S. economy. 20% of the economy under direct beuracratic goverment control,...terrifying to say the least.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Cry me a river. I have health issues as well, but those are MY problems, not anyone else's. TO be blunt, I do not care about the other people's health issues since it is up to them to take care of themselves. It is not my duty to take care of some loser because they are unable or simply do not want to take care of themselves. We all have a personal responsibility (uh oh, I said a bad word!) to take care of ourselves and to not burden others with our problems. Obamacare is nothing but a burden on the majority to pay for the clear minority who do not want to take responsibility for themselves.
Posted By: Ladynaye (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 07:57 PM
"Also as a self employed man, he can write off anything so he pays almost no income taxes"
He'll have a blast at his next IRS audit.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 08:07 PM
The problem with the health care bill is the Public Option. Making the federal government both the rule maker/enforcer and an insurance provider is like having a football referee owning the football team.
There are many other ways the government could provide health care coverage for those who cannot afford it. Have the federal government buy insurance for example. If the present insurance market is too expensive, then let the feds provide the money to start several non-profit insurance companies that will then be independent of the federal government.
I'm sure that there are many other ways this could be done. However, having the federal government be the provider and rule-maker will lead to conflicts of interest.
Posted By: CDL (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 08:42 PM
Ah yes, Ladynaye - lemme guess, public education? Drive on public roads? Have water piped right into your house by the city? Gotta love conservatives who think it's everyone else who's trying to "get something for nothing." Ladynaye must really hate the military - why should she pay for troops when she can defend her own house from terrorists??? Some people are so incredibly obtuse it's beyond words.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 PM
They gave you Lortab for mono? That's odd, but fortunate.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 03:26 AM
correction (Guest),
I like what you are selling and I want to subscribe to your magazine.
Posted By: David (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 03:34 AM
Beautiful reply, correction.
Frankly I have yet to hear one coherent argument from a right-winger against healthcare reform. You usually only get one or two sentences before they devolve into shouting "communist!", "socialist!", and "massive debt!". I'd rather be in debt because of healthcare reform than to be in debt because of a pointless war in Iraq. Of course, they are completely devoid of alternatives of their own.
Posted By: Finn (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 06:34 AM
Mount Rushmore blushes as the selfishness and greed of those stringently-alligned to the right continue to make a mockery of the nation.
Posted By: Chungles (Registered) on November 25, 2009 at 06:59 AM
Why do people assume because another person does not have health care, they're some kind of pathetic simpleton who doesn't work hard?
NEWS FLASH! People who don't have health care include:
- college graduates looking for work
- unemployed victims of recession
- small business owners struggling to get by
- people who work two or even three jobs
Unfortunately the amount of health care you have is not directly tied to work ethic. It's pretty ignorant when someone says "I worked hard to get where I am," as if every uninsured person in America is on welfare.
Posted By: Guest#8139 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 12:40 PM
"How about this-- privatize EVERY industry that's currently socialized: police, fire departments, mail carriers and see how long you like that. Then those "dead beats" (i.e. people poorer than you...) will learn by having their houses burned down and their mail tossed in a sewer!
Posted By: Guest#1685 (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 03:08 PM"
All right, buddy, here's a fun fact: whenever someone brings in the strawman into the argument it means that they can’t make a cohesive point for their cause. First of all, I’ve been in small towns where they’ve had to privatized the fire department or base them on a volunteer service. Last I checked, those towns are doing fine because whenever you pay taxes you’re indirectly paying for them. Second, areas with private a private police force do tend to be safer on the count that they hold them to a higher standard. And in a few years most people will be paying their bills online and we will move in a direction that requires less paper work and thus the USPS will not be able to compete with mailing packages as they would have gone out of business a long time ago if they were not handed the job without looking at market competition.
Second, just because someone is opposed to socialized medicine does not mean that they are 100% against government. What you’re doing is presenting an either-or situation where one has to choose between total socialism or anarchy. Nice try there, though.
“Gotta love conservatives who think it's everyone else who's trying to "get something for nothing." Ladynaye must really hate the military - why should she pay for troops when she can defend her own house from terrorists??? Some people are so incredibly obtuse it's beyond words.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 24, 2009 at 11:03 PM”
Ditto this guy, too, for bringing in the strawman. Um, did you read that part about “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State?” No, didn’t think so.
“Mount Rushmore blushes as the selfishness and greed of those stringently-alligned to the right continue to make a mockery of the nation.
Posted By: Chungles (Registered) on November 25, 2009 at 06:59 AM”
And again, I’ll say, when it comes down to it, conservatives donate more of their own time and money on average than liberals without needing someone to force them to do it. So yeah, liberals are such selfless people what with, on average, making several thousand dollars more than conservatives all the while donating less.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 02:09 PM
BKS, I would be interested in reading more about political values' relation to charitable giving. Care to share your source?
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 02:28 PM
And again, I’ll say, when it comes down to it, conservatives donate more of their own time and money on average than liberals without needing someone to force them to do it. So yeah, liberals are such selfless people what with, on average, making several thousand dollars more than conservatives all the while donating less.
Posted By: BKS (Guest)
That explains Rudy Giuliani mocking Obama's community service at the RNC last year, and everyone in attendance laughing along with him, as well as the complete lack of disgust from the right for him doing so. Yep, a giving nature indeed.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on November 25, 2009 at 02:57 PM
BKS, you might want to look into the definition of a "strawman." Unless Ladynaye is made of straw. Then again it doesn't really matter to you, since you pull "facts" out of the air to bolster your supposed argument. Conservatives donate more than liberals? Prove it.
I enjoy how conservatives love to run to the Constitution when it's something they're concerned about (but we're supposed to get a military!) but ignore it when it doesn't jive with their beliefs. I especially love that BKS chooses a quote that says nothing about a federal militia, but one run by the state. Oops.
Maybe you should donate some of your time to actually coming up with arguments that make sense instead of lashing out at people who point out the hypocrisy of conservatives.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 02:57 PM
I find it quite telling that that the most liberal among us can be so generously philantropic.... When someone else is paying for it. I realize its not always easy to do but compassion needs to be tempered with reality and common sense.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 03:17 PM
ghb1978,
wait a second. You said,
"Its not an estimate. Going by everything I've ever read or heard on the matter healtcare and everything it constitutes accounts for roughly 20% of the U.S. economy."
If you have to say "roughly" its an estimate. Unless you have an exact figure or a place where one can see an exact figure I just have a very difficult time believing it to be that much.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 03:45 PM
The point brought up by BKS concerning charitable giving is true and there is plenty of hard data to support it. Economist Steve Brooks wrote an interesting book on the subject and IRS as well as the NCCS(National Center of Charitable Statistics) data support the assertion. many other sources and scholars also support the claim. I'm not sure how much relevance that has to the discussion as a whole. I just saw that some of you chose to treat it as made up fact that was "pulled out the air". Some wanted proof or a source for such a ridiculous, blasphemous claim. Now you have it and if you choose not to believe me, you can do a little digging of your own.
---
(Just because we all don't agree is no reason not to be civilized and reasonable. With that said everybody have a Happy Thanksgiving and pause to appreciate the simple pleaures in life such as friends and family) GO GIANTS!!!
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 04:52 PM
I used the word roughly because National Health care would not go into effect immediately, so I can't use the immediate data. I have to rely on projections, and its impossible to be 100% accurate with any projection. As it stands right now Healthcare accounts for 16.2% of our GDP. By the time Obamacare would go into effect that number is projected to be right around 20% if not higher. Since there's only future projections to work with I chose the word roughly. ( Check out the Department of Health and Human Services specificaly the National Health Expenditure Data if you care to see for yourself.)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 05:25 PM
That explains Rudy Giuliani mocking Obama's community service at the RNC last year, and everyone in attendance laughing along with him, as well as the complete lack of disgust from the right for him doing so. Yep, a giving nature indeed.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on November 25, 2009 at 02:57 PM
How well are those comunity organisers doing nowadays? The ACORN scandal was pretty telling bro. Of course, your lamestream media tried to ignore it. Kepp being generous lib........with other peoples money. Last question shockmaster, have you followed Aston Kucher with your pledge of allegance to Obama today?
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 06:26 PM
"Ah yes, Ladynaye - lemme guess, public education? Drive on public roads? Have water piped right into your house by the city? Gotta love conservatives who think it's everyone else who's trying to "get something for nothing." Ladynaye must really hate the military - why should she pay for troops when she can defend her own house from terrorists??? Some people are so incredibly obtuse it's beyond words."
Not being obtuse nor conservative, but outside of defense/police, the private sector does provide for roads, education and water service. I purchase the water piped to my house from a company called American Water, which is sort of odd because American Water is owned by German firm.
In order to get water service, people (private citizens) pay American Water (private company) to install connection to water line and then a per/use charge monthly. Ask your parents who they pay for water service, or in the off chance you pay for your water consumption, who do you right check to?
The only unique example you listed was defense in that you cannot assign property rights to its use or consumption. Therefore, only the coercive power of the state to tax and spend can provide such goods. Whereas, property rights can clearly be assigned to the production and consumption of health care services/medicine, roads, education and yes water, which is piped right to your house.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 06:45 PM
gbh and bks: The author's name was Arthur Brooks, and his study found that there was one thing that caused the big difference in the numbers: church. Take out religious donations and the numbers are the same when it comes to donating (not to mention time donated vs. cash). All his study proved was that conservatives are more religious and they give more to their churches, which nobody disputes. It was also an incomplete study, since it didn't take into account donations made that were tax write-offs and if donating a wing of a library was considered the same as volunteering your time at a soup kitchen. So please, conservatives and liberals are both generous in their own ways, and it's shameful to try and say that one group is more giving than the other.
I'm not happy with the health care bills, but at least an effort is being made to push things in the right direction. But waiting on rich people to donate enough so we all have health care obviously hasn't worked, and one of the causes of our economic problems is health care.
Side note: if conservatives like ladynaye are all about "personal responsibility," then why don't they think we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Those wars are costing us trillions, and I'd think conservatives would be demanding that they start taking some "personal responsibility" for all of the stuff we blew up. (note: sarcasm)
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 06:55 PM
I apoolgize for insinuation, no harm intended. I'm not even religious but is it not just as shameful to insinuate that a church is less worthy than other charitable groups?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 08:06 PM
And what in hell is wrong with donating a new wing to library? I didnt realize that was a bad thing? Is someone actually opposed to reading? Will some please think about the children?? (Sarcasm)
-corrected-
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 08:19 PM
Conservatives, regardless of the fact they may donate more money to Christian churches to further the fight against homosexuality, choice and progression, are, by nature of their political allignment selfishy and greedy. When it comes to giving a shit about other people, you people are taking a dump in the face of your forefathers you delusionally hijack as your own, whose spirit embodied the current fight by Obama to give the less off a helping hand in life.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 08:59 PM
Correction and Chungles are typical liberals, everything is owed to them. Never mind working for it, it is entitled. These pathetic losers could never start a private sector buisness or climb the latter in a company. They just stick their hand out and say "give me"
Keep coveting other peoples things, see were that gets you. I know slappies, get off your couch, turn off Ophrah and get a job. Your life is your responsibility. Pathetic losers.
Now call me a racist. Blame Bush.
Posted By: Guest#2881 (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 11:10 PM
gbh1978,
ok there we go. thats all i wanted. You do bring up an interesting point though. You said "healthcare" accounts for roughly 20% of the gdp. You're assuming that this represents a government takeover of healthcare and that's just not true. The government is basically acting as an insurance provider- a far cry from completely taking over the healthcare industry. I mean the statement still isn't really accurate. Don't know why i didnt catch that sooner.
oh and by the way
J!E!T!S! JETS! JETS! JETS!!!!
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 03:53 AM
Somebody's been gobbling down all the Fox/Limbaugh rhetoric of the last decade...
So caring about other human beings is mutually exclusive to success? What a ridiculous conclusion. Just because so many apolitical, socially-ignorant neanderthals, when they become rich, decide to become selfish, greedy little pigs, doesn't mean you can't succeed in business, within the private sector, by continuing to possess a social conscience.
How many private sector success stories rely on bank loans? How many succeed without people? You're always relying on your fellow mankind to give you a helping hand, a chance, to better your position/life.
And that, as an American, is what is owed to you: a chance. That was the belief of your forefathers, that was the ideal that they fought for and what your country was built upon.
It isn't liberalism - ooooh, what a dirty word! - it's merely humanity. How you can look at millions of your countrymen (especially considering all the patriotic nonsense you, inclined towards the right, also hijack and exploit) who aren't being given that chance, not even at being able to pay for medical bills, because they perhaps weren't afforded the same socio-economic factors that have driven your obvious success in life (I mean, look at you, you're regurgitating generalised attacks against the big meanie Liberals on a computer, that's surely a success?) and to just say 'fuck them', insinuating their problems derive more from laziness than perpetual governmental ineptness in tackling these socio-economic problems, marks you as nothing but a worthless piece of shit.
We fund the fight for wars, many over the course of history just, to help people. To protect people. It's just a basic level of humanity your right-wing radio, "news" and previous regimes have led you to believe is somehow repugnant. To dismiss that humanity just makes you less humane, more selfish and greedy, and, well, just a shit American.
Now go dwell in your victimhood. Watch Fox. Cry political correctness because them negroes are pissing in the same toielts. Distort humanity with the computer game politics of your peers. It's you versus them dammit!
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 05:36 AM
For the one who chose to go into incoherent rambling attack mode,
- I hate to burst your little bubble but I don't fit into your ridiculous assumption box of intolerance. I'm not religious nor do I have any problem with gay people. I know both gay and religious people that I like as well as those I don't like. I judge people on who they are rather than what they are. I have never been opposed to choice or progress as long it makes sense. I also give a lot of my time and energy to VOLUNTARILY coaching both flag football and biddy basketball. I have never hijacked anything, dumped on anyone and am seldom delusional. Since I don't subscribe to any particular political allignment, I certainly can't be hit with the selfishy monicker. I don't even know what "selfishy" is, but I'm positive that its not me.
-When you choose to go into assumption and run-on sentence attack mode it makes you look pathetic, stinks of desperation, and completely undercuts any valid points(or lack there of) you may have previously made. You need to have more in your bag of tricks to get the best of me. If you actually have an intelligent point to make, then make it. Trying to fit everyone who disagrees with you into an assumption filled ideological box just makes you look desperate, pathetic and ridiculous.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM
For my Jets rooting friend,
-Are you not splitting really thin hairs now? Even if the govt would only become a really big insurance company as you say, they would still be controling 20% of the economy. The govt would become the sole bill payer for healthcare, funded with taxdollars. In my book that is control. Well I'm off to do the familly/football/turkey thing. Happy Thanksgiving!
(Btw your boys will be just fine in the future. You'll get Jenkins as well as Washinton back and almost all rookie QB's suck!)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM
This is why im glad i live in Canada. My son was born premature and had health issues and had to spend the first 7 mnths in the hospital and had several operations. At a daily cost of around $2000. i paid $0. and i dont have private insurance. Also after he got out of the hospital he still had medical issues, and the government GAVE us a benifits card to help pay for all his medical needs. so for the $900 in medicine i needed 3x a year, I paid $5 each time. On top of that, the governmet also provides funding to pay for 75% of the medical equipment needed. with out all that, it would have cost me over $20,000 a year for the last 4 years. And all this is standard health care coverage in Canada. With us and the UK already using a great system for decades, whats so hard that the US cant come up with one for themselves?
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM
"With us and the UK already using a great system for decades, whats so hard that the US cant come up with one for themselves?
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 12:34 PM"
Canada has a lot fewer doctors-per-person ratio than it did several years-ditto UK- which accounts for long wait periods in your country. We also have a larger cancer survival rate that is too wide to be written as a coincidence. You because you're not paying for something doesn't mean it's free.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Oh, gbh, didn't realise you were referring to me. Cos, y'know, I wasn't referring to you. Half the things you try to defend as never having done weren't even aimed at you, nor the person it was even in response to; it was directed towards the church and those Conservatives who pile so much money into this hateful political party disguised as theism.
Are there many Conservatives in America that aren't strictly adhering to the partisan perspective on the issue of adopting the same kind of health system that has proved a success, indeed a life-saver literally, in countries throughout the world? Countries, may I add, that regularly top tables on health. Who also seem to kinda survive the tax and governmental-control implications. (Regardless of how your lobby-funded politicians or self-interested "news" outlets attempt to re-educate you otherwise.)
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Answer for Huh?: companies make too much money off of for-profit health care, that's why Obama and the rest of our politicians are so deathly afraid of a single payer system. It's why Nixon pushed to privatize health care and why Obama took single-payer off the table immediately. And since the tech and housing bubbles have burst, the only thing keeping us afloat are the health and insurance bubbles, so they're not about to go against them and suggest that it's our duty as Americans to care for each other.
There's a reason George W. Bush outsourced so much of the fighting in the Middle East - they wanted to have as much private military as government military, because private = profit in their minds (never mind how those private companies actually do their jobs, and the fact that they're ripping off our troops to make even more profit). Still do (in fact Obama's administration has hired Blackwater to go into Pakistan). American conservatives believe that profit can be had doing ANYTHING, and they're doing whatever they can to prove it. If a few hundred thousand people have to die, so what - as long as the wealthiest among us don't have to be bothered with it.
Like I mentioned before, it's a matter of empathy. They're all for sending people to war - unless it's their kids. They hate gay marriage - until they have a gay child. And they despise the idea of someone else getting "something for nothing" when it comes to health care - until someone in their family gets sick and they don't have insurance.
And why is it that conservatives assume that people who support health care for everyone want something for nothing? I pay taxes. I'd happily pay more in taxes if it meant a child wouldn't have to go hungry or could be cured of some disease. There's a commercial running here where an actress playing a mother talks about how horrible it would be if they raised taxes on sugary drinks to pay for health care. I say - do it! I'd happily pay an extra few cents on each Pepsi I drink if it means a person with cancer gets the treatment he or she needs. But I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't think of it as those people in need "wanting" something. We're not talking about free boob jobs and face lifts for poor people. We're talking about basic care for people who are struggling. And right now, that's a lot of Americans. I love our country, but I hate the way some of us treat each other.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on November 26, 2009 at 10:21 PM
"There's a commercial running here where an actress playing a mother talks about how horrible it would be if they raised taxes on sugary drinks to pay for health care. I say - do it! I'd happily pay an extra few cents on each Pepsi I drink if it means a person with cancer gets the treatment he or she needs. But I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't think of it as those people in need "wanting" something. We're not talking about free boob jobs and face lifts for poor people. We're talking about basic care for people who are struggling. And right now, that's a lot of Americans. I love our country, but I hate the way some of us treat each other."
And here we see the common problem with liberalism: just because you can afford the tax hike doesn't mean other can. Sales tax effects everyone- from the guy buying supplies for his business to a kid buying a gatorade. People need small things like sugary drinks because it makes life more enjoyable and putting a heavier burden on those who only have small things like that so that others can have something you feel they are entitled to so only furthers the problem. How about instead of complaining about "rich" people you go out and help other? Honestly, the reason I don't feel the empathy liberals do is because I've volunteered in a shelters where we required that anyone looking for help pull themselves up with us helping. If you need that empathetic feeling you're missing in your life then maybe you should go out and volunteer knowing you're actually helping instead of just sending other people's money to some bureaucrat.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 01:07 AM
Chungles,
- Judging by your spelling, lack of grammar and general lack of command of the English language I'll guess you can't be out of highschool yet. So essentially you're attempting to talk down to and minimize someone who is wiser and better educated than you are. Don't sweat it, I was an abrasive ass when I was 16 too. You're obliously a bright kid and you're interested in important issues which is great. You're empty rhetoric, baseless claims, insults, and outright false statements speak volumes for your lack of perspective though.
-Instead of regurgitating what you read on the Daily Kos or where ever you get your info, why don't get some unambigous information from an unbiased source?(Or as close to unbiased as one can find these days) There is a wealth of knowledge out there to be found. If you do choose to do this you would find out that state controlled socialized medicine isn't all sunshine and lollipops like many would make it out to be.
-Can socialized medicine do some good and save some lives? Absolutely it can, without a doubt. There are other means to achieve that good though and that good comes at a heavy price. There is a major difference between something being free and having it come at no cost.
-Im not gonna go and make pro/con lists, nor am I going to say that you're view is wrong.I will just say there is treasure chest of information out there to help you better grasp the very topic you obviously care so passionately about. Check out the economic ramifications. Check out the effect on preventive and non-emergency care. Check out the impact it has on patient care, specifically the impact on the quality of healthcare professionals. Read some of the sobering stories about waits that have been endured for treatment, for surgeries, and for other procedures considered non-essential. Find out the impact this can have on your personal fianances. Research the track record of goverments as it pertains to the handling of massive beaurocricies. Truely weigh all the relevant factors, benefits and ramifications.
-Do all that and ask yourself if you want the goverment being such a controlling factor in your life. Ask yourself if you trust beaurocrats with such a massive responsibility. Ask yourself if there's not more simple common sense ways to solve healthcare problems. Ask yourself if its really worth it.
-Idealism is a good thing. We should all want better for ourselves and for society in general. The problem is that idealism and reality are perpetualy at odds with eachother. I've found that the truth is almost always found somewhere in the middle, which is why I have little use for zealots on either side of the political spectrum.
(Fyi- I don't have my opinions spoonfed to me, nor have I been re-educated by anything or anyone and I resent the implication. I do my own reading, find out my own information, draw my own conclusions and finally do this screwball thing called thinking. In short I form my own opinions, don't forget it please)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 01:36 AM
I pay 420 a month for myself, my wife and my baby...Maybe that's a lot. I don't care whether or not my neighbor has it. I'm not helping him get it.
Posted By: Happy and Insured (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 02:06 AM
gbh,
My spelling, grammar and general grasp of English are - with the exception of the informal use of 'Cos' and the earlier typo of 'selfish' - near perfect, thank you very much. I'll ignore the subsequent bile that derived from that first, incorrect, point; I'm not willing to lower myself to pathetic 'you're a 16 year old' levels.
Your failure to recognise my near perfect grasp of the English language is no doubt a result of the different approach we each take towards certain ways of spelling - myself, being from the UK you see, do not spell many words identically to you, as an American.
Yes, from the UK.
Where we have this 'socialized' medicine.
So rather than read ambiguous information from unbiased sources or liberally-alligned blogs, I'll just refer to my own experiences living in a nation with 'socialized' medicine.
Now, first off, there's that whole 'socialism as a dirty word' thing you, of the right, always seem inclined towards. Your uniform failure to evolve from McCarthyist/Cold War thinking simply derives from your poor education on the matter; were you to actually properly understand the concept (and I'll be the first to point out its failures and the ultimate implausibility in implementing it fully in modern times) then maybe you wouldn't so moronically regurgitate this ignorance-laden rhetoric, complete with all the misconstrued connotations to Communism. Perhaps when you're able to use the term 'socialized medicine' without the completely unjustified vitriol, then a debate with you may be worth somebody's time. Unfortunately, yourself living in a state run by lobbyists and the rich, I can't foresee many of you getting a proper education on the actual meaning of the ideal/theory.
That having been said, I can only query to what extent is your knowledge on those countries, one of which I inhabit, that frequently top the tables on health-care while yours continues to languish far bahind, and their adoption of 'socialized' medicine? Because, to me, it appears your knowledge is as lacking as your understanding of the concept of Socialism. I understand the economic ramifications of free health care; I'm old enough to pay taxes and have done for years. And I don't mind. I'm fortunate not to have had any serious medical problems, but I'll pay that little bit extra the rest of my life to ensure those that do aren't being burdened with the heavy costs simply because some self-serving company doesn't want to lose money. Sure, there are waiting lists, beauracracy has often tarnished the system in the past, but they're improving. People aren't dying because they're poor in my country; because they were born into socio-economic environs that have hindered their whole lives; or consider a 'loss'.
We, at least, are human.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 06:32 AM
Chungles,
-Hey I apologize for my ridiculous opening. I took a bit literary licence and got way carried away trying to drive a point home. I wrote a second note two minutes later, acknowledging how slimy it was as well as admitting that I screwed up with the spelling and grammar cracks. I only looked at a one comment as opposed to everything you posted. I freely acknowledged that your spelling and grammar is actually quite good. That comment never got posted though for some reason.Anyway something like that is completely beneath my dignity and I do apologize.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Was enjoying your comments at first, gbh, but you just plummeted there from commendability to a textbook case of the smug can't-be-wrongs. It's like you stubbed your toe before sitting down at the computer and decided to take it out on another poster.
Oh, and I hope that 'grasp of English' comment was facetious, because that was some pretty bad grammar and structure.
By the way, I'm aware you probably don't care about my dollar-store analysis, but I needed something to kill a few minutes.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 12:20 PM
-I'm not ignorant enough to think that many things in my country are not already partially if not fully socialized. I do not consider it a dirty word, because I realize that in certain applications it is reasonable if not needed. I'm glad you're happy with your system and have a clean conscious on the matter. My sister in law is from the U.K. as well and is of two minds on the healthcare subject. The benefits and drawbacks are virtualy at a stalemate in her mind.
-You are glazing over one MASSIVE point though my friend...the difference in size between our countries and populations. You admit that your sytem isn't perfect, that there are problems. I can't begin to imagine how much those problems will be magnified in a country that's size and population are many times that of your own. (Yeah I got a little lazy and didn't find the exact size and population numbers. Sue me mate. Lol)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I never said it was free. I pay 21% income tax. but so does everyone else (if you make under $30,000) and as for long waits...if talking about ER visits, I was just there when I hurt my knee playing football, and in less than an hour, I had seen the Dr. gotten X-rays, a perscription and was on my way. It might not be a perfect system, and I know its not, but right now its better than what the US has.
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Of course, your lamestream media tried to ignore it. Kepp being generous lib........with other peoples money. Last question shockmaster, have you followed Aston Kucher with your pledge of allegance to Obama today?
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 25, 2009 at 06:26 PM
Lamestream! ROFL! I get it.. it's like a play on 'mainstream' right? Perfect! Afterall, it isn't like FOX or Rush Limbaugh get any ratings, or money! Not to mention, that if they aren't mainstream, then they can play with victim card! That's just swell!
Posted By: CMS (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Hey Chungles,
Why do you think anyone in America would care what some British, socialist, blowhard, KOS reader thinks about our health care system?
You all have bad teeth. Your food sucks.No one cares anything about you. Your royal family is a embarrasment. Now go call me a ugly american, just know this, most of us could give a rats ass less about you and your country
God save that.
Your Ricky Hatton, GHB1978 is Floyd Mayweather.
Did I forget to mention that we do not give a shit about the UK? Ok good.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 05:20 PM
@Huh?, I make about two thirds of what you make(before taxes), and actually pay higher taxes than you. Also, I live in Kentucky. So much for people in Canada paying more in taxes.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 06:27 PM
We aint all retards like John, Chungles.
Posted By: DiscoInferno (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 07:18 PM
gbh, I'm glad you've reverted towards more sensible discourse. First off, while I acknowledge the bureaucratic inefficiencies within the National Health Service here in the UK, and I'm certainly not alone among fellow Brits, few - and I mean few - residents would suggest that the system isn't of extreme importance, pride and worth; it is a national institution that few have any regrets in funding. I have no doubt that should the Democrats have success in implenting the finalised, albeit lobbyist-saturated, system, come a decade from now, Americans will likewise come to revere it as a symbol of national pride. Worthy of every cent.
You may even climb from that disastarously low standing in the worldwide health-care tables.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 08:22 PM
Lmao @ two things, First, the Mayweather/Hatton comparison was quite flattering but I'm GBH not GHB. I am not the date rape drug damnit! Secondly, "We aint all retards". Perhaps not the best way to illustrate the point. I don't agree with or endorse much of what he said either but, "We aint all retards"?...Yeeeaaaah not good. :)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 08:57 PM
-Come on now. You had to make me go there... Would you be referring to to the W.H.O(world health organization) report that has the U.S. Ranked 37th in the world in healthcare? Is that what you're referring to?
-If that is what your referring to, and you have to be because there's nothing else, then your arguement is bankrupt. That "report" has been so completely discredited and rebuked that its almost laughable to continually bring it up. I'm not going to list the numerous flaws in the method and results because I only have 2800 characters to work with here.
I'm not all knowing. I don't know where U.S. truely ranks in healthcare, although I KNOW its much better then you would have people believe. I can only say that W.H.O is a fitting acronym. As in W.H.O the f*** could take that report seriously?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 09:49 PM
One more thing Chungles. You say that your heltcare system is a source of national pride and I believe you when you say it. The thing is though that many from Baltimore would say that the Orioles are a source of pride. That doesn't make them a good baseball team!
-
-(No offense to Baltimore, I just needed to make the analogy. I'm a Mets fan so I could hardly use my team with the Yankees next door! Lol)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 10:16 PM
That "report" has been so completely discredited and rebuked that its almost laughable to continually bring it up. I'm not going to list the numerous flaws in the method and results because I only have 2800 characters to work with here.
I'm not all knowing. I don't know where U.S. truely ranks in healthcare, although I KNOW its much better then you would have people believe. I can only say that W.H.O is a fitting acronym. As in W.H.O the f*** could take that report seriously?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 09:49 PM
Dont get lazy on us, GBH. I suspect you'd enjoy spending some time debunking someone, so why not take the time to actually explain WHY this report is the product of 'evil foreigners' who hate America.
Then, you can explain how you KNOW the United States ranks higher than 'he' would have people believe.
Posted By: Guest#2401 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 09:51 AM
That "report" has been so completely discredited and rebuked that its almost laughable to continually bring it up. I'm not going to list the numerous flaws in the method and results because I only have 2800 characters to work with here.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 27, 2009 at 09:49 PM
Awesome, now I dont have to take the time to rebuke your criticism of the report! Political debate is so easy when you dont have to actually defend your points. Afterall, anyone with "common sense" can see that the report is just more socialist propoganda, right?
Posted By: Guest#7082 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 10:18 AM
@ The Great Capt. Smooth
wow really?
and what do you get for all those taxes you pay? I guess thats another better thing about living here. lower taxes AND something to show for it.
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 03:04 PM
As far as I'm aware, the report hasn't exactly been 'discredited'; rebuked yes, but in a similar fashion to the way opponents of Michael Moore's 'Bowling For Columbine' selectively repudiated certain scenes ('Oh, that scene was set up! You can't get a gun from that bank the same day, you have to wait 24 hours goddamit!') so loudly and frequently enough that it overlooked the central tenet of the film: that there is a major problem with gun control in the US.
Similarly here, with this 'discrediting' of the W.H.O. report that Moore highlighted in his 'Sicko' documentary, opponents merely select certain aspects of the report and criticise it to an extent that they're glossing over the fact that there is a major problem with the health-care system in America.
Their argument, if I recall correctly, basically states that because the W.H.O. took the approach of looking at a variety of factors to determine the eventual league-standings, rather than merely going to the best hospital in the US, employing the best-paid doctors in the US, aiding the richest citizens in the US, then ultimately acknowledging that the 'US IS THE GREATEST!!! WOOO HOOOO! SPRING BREAK!!!!', then the report must therefore be meaningless.
They attack the W.H.O. (typical of those representing the modern day right-wing, anything connected to the UN, a body comprised of a huge amount of Americans within its various branches, where the US has a substantial say and influence, has, since the loud criticisms against the WMD-led invasion of Iraq, been attacked as some evil, foreign entity out to dismantle America's greatness) because it had the audacity - THE SHEER AUDACITY! - to base quality health-care on the - dirty word here people - *distribution* of health. To these people, a nation's quality of health-care shouldn't be determined on whether or not the whole nation gets the health-care, it should be judged merely on how good the health-care is for the guy that can afford it. If a nation can provide great health-care in certain areas, who cares if a scarily large percentage of people aren't capable of recieving it because they're too poor? Too risky an investment for the private profit-driven companies that effectively run the system? Why should *that* be taken into account?!
And on and on they go, not even remotely 'discrediting' the report. Merely regurgitating Bush-era rhetoric against any criticisms, selectively ignoring anything that doesn't adhere to their moronic gutter-level patriotism, and effectively just sticking up for the status quo that has left so many millions of citizens at risk for their lives simply because they haven't got enough 0's in their bank accounts.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 07:03 PM
Ran out of characters; I'll keep the rest brief.
First off, your analogy kinda fails to hit the mark in that you fail to ackwnowledge that this national pride for the health-care system we have funded and benefited from for over 60 years is derived from almost every citizen, regardless of political make-up, party allignment or tax-band. You won't get every citizen of New York talking of their pride for the Mets. But whatever, your analogy seems ridiculous to the extent of facetiousness, so I won't dwell further on trying to counter it.
Secondly, vaingloriously bathing in the empty praise of 'John', while reproaching some other guy who, rightly if not eloquently, pointed out what a worthless addition his comments were to the proceedings of this topic, kinda just makes you look like a douche. I'd personally rather have ONE sensible, mature individual praise my efforts than a MILLION John's, who quite frankly just make whoever they're alligned to look just as equal an idiot. I know you stated that you didn't agree with all he said, but in all honesty, nothing he said was of any merit to the conversation; pitiful generalizations and crass stereotyping, all of which missed their mark (John, I've never read Kos, I don't like the idea of 'our' monarchy, my teeth are all there, and patriotism and religion are for fools), you really should have just ignored his baseless praise as the meaningless drivel it was.
Now, lastly, I spent quite a bit of time writing out my riposte to this John kid's comments, yet they weren't submitted for some reason; it gets to a point on this site where you question the point in participating in such discourse when for reasons completely unbeknownst to myself or common sense, are prohibited from being published. Especially considering the fecal matter stemming from the likes of John's keyboard that is seemingly deemed worthy of approval...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 07:25 PM
-Wait just a second here. Chungles repeatedly asserts that the U.S has a poor rating in healthcare and not a soul asks him for a whiff of proof. Yet the moment I refute his questionable claims the evidence police come out full force! Hypocritical much?
-I chose not to explain it because to do it properly would be quite the time consuming excersise. I wasn't joking about the 2800 characters thing! A simple Google search should satisfy your intelectual curiosities. If some of you are so inclined you can search "U.S. Healthcare ranking" and see what pops.
-The point being that the W.H.O. report should be viewed as questionable as best.As far as how I know that were better than reported, do a little reading and apply some common sense. Do you actually think that the U.S. could rank behind Costa Rica among other countries unless the methodolgy was severley flawed? Just do a little research on the matter and draw your own conclusions.
-I don't have all the answers and cannot explain every detail of absolutely everything. I know a massive turd in the punchbowl when I see one though. If my intelectual honesty is going be questioned, let's at least hold others to the same standard. Unless of course were not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 08:04 PM
-Wait just a second here. Chungles repeatedly asserts that the U.S has a poor rating in healthcare and not a soul asks him for a whiff of proof. Yet the moment I refute his questionable claims the evidence police come out full force! Hypocritical much?
-I chose not to explain it because to do it properly would be quite the time consuming excersise. I wasn't joking about the 2800 characters thing! A simple Google search should satisfy your intelectual curiosities. If some of you are so inclined you can search "U.S. Healthcare ranking" and see what pops.
-The point being that the W.H.O. report should be viewed as questionable as best.As far as how I know that were better than reported, do a little reading and apply some common sense. Do you actually think that the U.S. could rank behind Costa Rica among other countries unless the methodolgy was severley flawed? Just do a little research on the matter and draw your own conclusions.
-I don't have all the answers and cannot explain every detail of absolutely everything. I know a massive turd in the punchbowl when I see one though. If my intelectual honesty is going be questioned, let's at least hold others to the same standard. Unless of course were not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 08:05 PM
And yes I just checked, "U.S. Healthcare Rankings" produces more than adequate results.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 08:14 PM
-Wait just a second here. Chungles repeatedly asserts that the U.S has a poor rating in healthcare and not a soul asks him for a whiff of proof. Yet the moment I refute his questionable claims the evidence police come out full force! Hypocritical much?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 08:05 PM
No, not really. He referred to a report issued by a massive NGO. Your response was more less "that doesnt count because the report is invalid for reasons I dont need to explain".
Posted By: Guest#3432 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 09:14 PM
And yes I just checked, "U.S. Healthcare Rankings" produces more than adequate results.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Yeah, pretty adequate. A bunch of articles criticizing the study because of factors such as distribution of healthcare.
Followed by an another study that rates America last in preventable death ranking.. because of a lack of access.
You sure showed us the way.
Posted By: Guest#7560 (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 09:41 PM
@Huh?, it's pretty disturbing. Get this. Under Bush Jr's tax cuts, the top 1% got an instant $90,000, including lower tax rates. I, on the other hand, got about 27 cents every paycheck. Under Obama, I am now getting about 17 extra bucks per check. It's not a ton, but it has sure come in handy for a needed tank of gas. I love my country with all my heart, but there are some things that we are so ass-backwards on.
Posted By: The Great Capt. Smooth (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 10:44 PM
You question the maturity level of my retort to your constant British bullshit, yet speak of fecal matter and call me names?
Pot, kettle, black.
Back to my point, do you really think other than a couple of one world socialists, that anyone cares about your opinion?
Do you think that Americans want to be like Europe?
Do you really?
I just told the truth.
You don't like it, thats your problem.
If I want to live in a socialist country, I would move to Vancouver, Canada. I don't. If that makes me patriotic, then great, thank you.
Your left wing brothers used to say speaking out against any administration was patriotic. Now the right does it and we need to learn how to be more like the UK? That is really stupid.
From then senator Clinton....... "I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Is Your left wing hero a "fool"
Now go knock back a few warm beers and live in your fantasy world were america gives a shit about you.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Thank goodness I like in the U.K and so don't have to deal with any of this, NHS are nice and speedy here as well as free :D
Posted By: Observer (Guest) on November 29, 2009 at 12:05 AM
ok John, please enlighten me on how you came up with this nugget of wisdom =If I want to live in a socialist country, I would move to Vancouver, Canada=
im guessing its just ignorance that you dont understand how similar our contries actually are. and please dont tell me we all live in igloos and ride horses :P
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 29, 2009 at 08:07 AM
Now go knock back a few warm beers and live in your fantasy world were america gives a shit about you.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Even with ALL of those broken one-sentences, you still managed to say nothing. Good job.
Posted By: Guest#7849 (Guest) on November 29, 2009 at 01:13 PM
I went with Vancouver becuase I live in Seattle and its the closest Canadian city.
The reason I said Canada is socialist is becuase it, at the very least, partially is. It has a socialist health care system. That was the origional subject. Try to keep up. My company used to represent a canadian firm with their service in the states. I met dozens of times with their management team and they themselves would point out how their governing was much better then ours do to their socialized health care.
Lets me ask you a question, air canada, state owned, canadian broadcasting, state owned, medicine, socialized, are you not partially socialized?
Am I still stupid? Now go study the history of Saskatchewan and their socialist goverment of the 40s and 50s.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 29, 2009 at 01:49 PM
Tried to answer you Huh, lost in 411 purgatory.
Your health care, news network and airlines are all goverment run entities.
Besides this conversation was about health care to begin with, which Canadians proudly brag about being socialist.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 29, 2009 at 05:00 PM
since were talking about health care NOW, what does it matter what one province did over 50 years ago?
and having some parts of a system run/helped by the government is so wrong because......?
I'll be the first to admit, I don't know allot about what's going on in the US right now, other than what I try to follow on here. But ever time I see a conversation about health care its a fight. I mean just because you cant afford your own health care, doesn't mean your some unemployed bum who never tried hard in life and just wants a hand out. Nothing in life is that black and white.
and please explain (and im not being sarcastic) why that 'S' word gets people so scared and angry that some people seem to forget all normal logic and reason? If your health care is privately run, then the costs are going to be high and limited to those who can afford it. that's just the way a business works, correct? to make money.
and since everyone already pays taxes then having a government system, to try and keep things equal for everyone, does make sence. Then the basic coverage for everyone would be the same. It's not perfect, and no system is. but after what I went through with my medical needs, I cant complain to much about how our system took care of me and my family.
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 09:22 AM
...Why does he hold such disdain for the 'S' word? Simply put, because he's been brought up on an education of cold-war rhetoric and thinking. The capitalist system - for which, by the way John, I support - that has succeeded to the point of misfortune in the United States, has led to a country where the rich companies and groups can hold such a powerful influence over politicians, the media and, subsequently, the populace as a whole, that a proper understanding of other economic theories or political movements completely eludes many Americans who aren't imbued with a thirst for knowledge. It's the same reason so many Americans differ so massively to the rest of the world when it comes to topics such as Israel, religion, the blatant acquiring of oil contracts in Iraq by American companies, and, in this case, health-care. So long as those who inform these people continue to ingrain into them the thinking I earlier referred to, shining up the turd of ignorance with several layers of patriotic gloss, nothing will change: so if you're one of the millions of American citizens who are trying so hard to make end's meet that it is ultimately to the detriment of your efforts to acquire affordable health-care for you and your family? John doesn't give a 'S'-word.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 01:54 PM
Seriously John, you're going to launch a slew of attacks on me, with about as much accuracy as Fpx News 'news', and then the second I point out how moronic those baseless insults are, you're going to cry like some little Glenn Beck bitch because I called out your idiocy? You've provided me enough evidence to justify my assertations that you're intellectually inferior to a McDonalds cheeseburger, sticking to sad little stereotypes that only highlight how little you know of the world - a sign, despite your insular, pre-emptive inferiority-complex-derived way of thinking that anything not related to the US isn't of any interest, that you're just plain dumb - that contribute absolutely nothing to the debate; I, on the other hand, have only imparted my take on this issue, aided by my experience in having lived in a nation that provides the same health-care system that is being proposed in your country, yet you feel you can attack me as a bad-teeth-having, monarchy-loving, leftist-blog-reading, Clinton-adoring Socialist? How is that not anything but fecal matter worthy of derision?
Fact is, you've given me plenty reason and justification to conclude you're an idiot. I gave you absolutely nothing to support your endless list of ignorance-laden stereotypes other than my nationality.
But by all means, continue referring to these archaic, moronic images; tell yourself you aren't doing it simply because, like all the conservative bullies that are tarnishing everything good that America stands for on their televised pulpits of paranoia, you sub-consciously know you're intellectually inferior to those you oppose. Pre-empt any accusations that you're a dolt that knows nothing of the world by pathetically asserting that you couldn't even *give* a shit about the rest of the world - nothing to do with the fact you don't *know* shit about the rest of the world! Continue to steer clear of rational and reason when partaking in debates and arguments, for that will ultimately just highlight you for the uneducated fool you are; instead, shout loudly - oh, and proudly! - empty accusations of 'Communists!' and 'Socialists', 'Nazism' and 'Terrorism'! Don't think for a second - just continue regurgitating the hatred, fear and paranoia that your media imparts on you. Call me 'anti-American', blissfully happy in your ignorant oblivion of stupidity, when I have more empathy and interest in Americans than you and your lobbyist-hand-me-down thinking will ever have.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 02:11 PM
“Why does he hold such disdain for the 'S' word? Simply put, because he's been brought up on an education of cold-war rhetoric and thinking.”
Or it could be because socialism is a system of fail that goes against capitalism, a system that has a long history of working- where being poor is something only a few have to go through. That, and here in the States the last time government was suppose to get involved in the distribution of wealth (LBJ’s Great Society) it was a massive failure. To quote the Congressional Quarterly: “President [JFK] stressed that the welfare programs should be directed towards the prevention of dependence and the rehabilitation of current relief recipients.”
This War on Poverty was met by criticism by the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, the late Barry Goldwater. He predicted these programs would encourage poverty because people will “move into the ranks of those being taken care of.” What was the result of this program? More people were more dependent on these programs later on than in 1964. By 1977, twice as many people were received public assistance than they did in 1960. What did those who supported this plan have to say after the failures?
They said that id didn’t fail because other wise, to quote Sheldon Danziger, “we’d have poverty rates over 25 percent.” You may guess, he pulled that number out of his ass. Many ignored the original goal of reducing dependency- and were instead redefined as reducing poverty by transferring wealth. Many in the Johnson administration brought up that people were now dependent on these programs to live decent lives instead of the original goal of not having these people to be a drain on resources. To quote Thomas Sowell: “test for whether programs [were] good for the country as a whole was whether those who personally benefited from it found it beneficial.
In short, as long as you change the intended goal the program will always succeed.
“Seriously John, you're going to launch a slew of attacks on me, with about as much accuracy as Fpx News 'news', and then the second I point out how moronic those baseless insults are”
Funny that you say that, seeing as Climategate has only been receiving coverage from them as oppose to other networks who might occasionally mention in. Heck, Russia Today did a fine job covering it, better than CNN.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 03:58 PM
---Or it could be because socialism is a system of fail that goes against capitalism, a system that has a long history of working- where being poor is something only a few have to go through.---
Sorry, I'm confused by that sentence: only a few have to go through being poor under Socialism? Or Capitalism? Either answer provides a ludicrous statement, quite honestly. And Socialism *doesn't* have a long history of working? Do you even know what Socialism is?
---That, and here in the States the last time government was suppose to get involved in the distribution of wealth (LBJ’s Great Society) it was a massive failure.---
They were reforms aimed primarily at tackling the racial discrimination and injustice of that time. African-Americans benefited immensely from the programs, many escaping the poverty Johnson had launched his 'War on'.
---This War on Poverty was met by criticism... these programs would encourage poverty because people will “move into the ranks of those being taken care of.”---
Rather than being ignored and left to die?
---What was the result of this program? More people were more dependent on these programs later on than in 1964. By 1977, twice as many people were received public assistance than they did in 1960.---
If only there were some big, costly war around that time that required huge numbers of soldiers who would eventually return home jobless that perhaps the Dems could point towards to defend this statement...
---They said that id didn’t fail because other wise, to quote Sheldon Danziger, “we’d have poverty rates over 25 percent.”...Many in the Johnson administration brought up that people were now dependent on these programs to live decent lives instead of the original goal of not having these people to be a drain on resources.---
If only there were some big, costly war around that time that would have detrimentally affected the effect of Johnson's reforms...
---Funny that you say that, seeing as Climategate has only been receiving coverage from them as oppose to other networks who might occasionally mention in. Heck, Russia Today did a fine job covering it, better than CNN.---
Perhaps the other networks are only occasionally mentioning it because a handful of scientists colluding to fudge stats maybe isn't exactly conclusive proof that there is a worldwide conspiracy by tree-huggers to get people to drive hybrid cars?
Whereas such conspiracy theorist nonsense plays into Fox News's current agenda of paranoia and staunch, relentless opposition to anything remotely 'lefty'? Funny you should mention Russia Today coverage; a state-owned news station from a nation who rely heavily on their state-owned petroleum industry. How surprising they'd give this 'Climategate' thing a bit of attention...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 07:21 PM
Disregard my remark on working, I just got what you meant. Now that I understand the sentence, I'd point out, as much as I advocate it, capitalism also has a long history of failing.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 07:52 PM
Chingles,
Do you giggle like a adolesent every time you refer to excrement? You sound like a five year old " John, your a dirty poo poo head"
That qualifies as intelligent?
Love how dismiss your goverment scientist committing fruad.
See that what the left does, you put all your trust into goverment and even when people lie to you like your scientists did, you don't care. Its beck and fox news who is at fault. Sounds like to me changles, your a goverment sheep.
So chimples, sorry I was rude with my stereotypes. By reading all of yours towards me, I think you really enjoyed them.
I still find it hard to believe that you think your opinion means anything to
this country. Rasmussen had a poll, only 38 percent of americans agree with the current health care overhaul. Are the other 62 percent dumbshits?
Some of us get by just fine without goverment being involved in every aspect of our lives, try it sometime,its very invigorating.
Typos due to blackberry.
Posted By: John (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 08:13 PM
---Do you giggle like a adolesent every time you refer to excrement? You sound like a five year old " John, your a dirty poo poo head"---
I made reference to your contributions to this discussion being on the level of 'fecal matter' once, and then a final time in response to you bringing it up. Hardly comparable to your example. But if bringing this innane point up allows you to completely ignore practically everything else I said, then so be it.
---That qualifies as intelligent?---
Well, few 5-year olds could tell you what 'fecal matter' means, quite frankly. Referring to the archaic stereotype of British people having bad teeth, now *that* would be closer to the intellectual level of a 5-year old.
So too would be your 'Chingles', 'Changles' and 'Chimples' remarks... I suppose it is in keeping with your level of maturity so far in this thread of conversation. Don't bother actually *saying anything* in direct response to my points, merely solidify those same points by asininely repeating the same childish garbage over and over again.
---Love how dismiss your goverment scientist committing fruad.---
I love how you don't get the facts right, further proving my point about your media. Government scientist?
---See that what the left does, you put all your trust into goverment and even when people lie to you like your scientists did, you don't care. Its beck and fox news who is at fault. Sounds like to me changles, your a goverment sheep.---
Once again, it wasn't *our* scientist. I'd urge you to pay some attention to the news, but it wouldn't surprise me if this complete lack of interest in the facts had also eluded Fox. Also, once again you're making these wild assumptions based solely on your blanket ignorance of everything outside your little little bubble of knowledge; the idea of 'left' and 'right' is nowhere near as prominent over here, for we don't have hilariously-biased news networks out to make money by trying to emphasise the difference between the two so as to carve out an audience that will remain strictly loyal to 'their brand' - so idiotically oblivious to the fact life doesn't split down these imaginery political divides that they succumb to these computer games politics of Fox News. Also, we put all our trust into the government? Seriously, read a fucking book. Or a newspaper. Anything to help you make statements on the UK without so clearly highlighting what an ignoramus you are; surely if you don't know a damn thing about something, you should shut your mouth so as not to look like a complete retard?
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 09:00 PM
...
And "all" our "trust" is not, and has never been, invested into the government. Seriously, all you know of me from this page is my support for the National Health Service in my country; therefore you mistakenly infer that I'm completely supportive of my government?
---So chimples, sorry I was rude with my stereotypes. By reading all of yours towards me, I think you really enjoyed them.---
Please enlighten me as to the stereotypes I directed towards you. Do you even know what stereotypes are? You being a moron after clearly proving that to every individual that views this page *is not* a stereotype.
---I still find it hard to believe that you think your opinion means anything to
this country. Rasmussen had a poll, only 38 percent of americans agree with the current health care overhaul. Are the other 62 percent dumbshits?---
Not too long ago a poll was conducted that found the majority of Americans agreed with the public option. A constant onslaught from the right-wing media, intent on refusing to budge on *anything* proposed by a government that has sought bi-partisanship approval and inclusion, in an attempt to quicken the transition back to the single-minded, partisan power of the GOP, has completely distorted this debate to the extent that idiots like you have been created, instilled with your neanderthal beliefs that crumble under even the most minute scrutiny (and when confronted, you simply resort to xenophobic stereotypes, childishness and pig-headed ignorance, as shown so successfully with your every post.) The fact is, in your country, in my country, in most countries, the majority of people are apolitical simpletons who only become politicized when their most basic traits of fear, paranoia and intolerance are stoked.
---Some of us get by just fine without goverment being involved in every aspect of our lives, try it sometime,its very invigorating.---
The mindless rhetoric of the Fox News generation. Thinking for yourself is very invigorating.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 09:00 PM
Some of us get by without religion being involved in every aspect of our lives...
Posted By: ThomasPaine (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 09:13 PM
Let me predict Johns reply:
Go fix your teeth you tea drinking communist.
Our government is freer than your dictatorship and your fascist royal family.
A couple other points that dont acknowledge chungles comments.
Stop insulting me you tea drinking KOS reader!
Have I wrote enough lines to make it look like Ive offered a valid reply?
My constant poor spelling isnt a sign of my illiteracy, its my blackberry. Which I have because I worked hard for it not like you chooples who works on a farm for the queer making tea.
Suck it.
___________________________________
Think that pretty much sums it up.
Posted By: Nostradamus (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 09:36 PM
-I was gonna stay out and be done with this but now I've been compelled. The CRU(climate research unit) was the major source of climate and temperature information that scientists based there now very questionable conclusions on. Not only did these people "fudge" the numbers as you say, it also seems extremely likely that they suppressed and destroyed any contradictory findings.
-I have no idea about the real truth of global warming although I always suspected that the doomsday proclamations were exagerated. There is no way to glaze over or minimize what transpired with those scientists though. To do so is pathetic. Only an intelectualy dishonest rabid zealot could attempt to downplay what those "men of science" did.
-How does this relate to a discussion of healthcare? To borrow a legal expression, it goes to credibility. If you're willing to downplay what those clowns did and toss around idiotic terms like, "tree hugger conspiracy" what other facts are you willing to downplay? What other truths are you willing to ignore when it serves your purpose? To what lengths will your rabid zeal drive your intelectual dishonesty?
-You like to use a lot of empty rhetoric, clever catchphrases, not to mention convenient rewrites of fact and history. If those are the measures needed to prop up your broken ideaology then you need a new world view. You've thrown a lot of religion bad, profit bad, business bad, America bad, workers of the world unite bulls**t around and it all stinks. I won't go so far as to call you a commie but if the pinko shoe fits...
-Now that is something I will not be apologizing for. I meant every single damn word of it. If someone wants to have an honest discussion on healthcare, I'm all for it. I doubt you have the capacity for intelectual honesty though, you're a blinded brainwashed zealot. You've been given rope and at every chance given, you've hung yourself. You're extreme, perverted, dishonest ideology being your executioner. If you've represented the best arguements for socialized medicine in the U.S. then there is no arguement.
I believe that is check and mate.Now if you'll excuse me there's an AMERICAN football game on.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM
I might as well bring this up too since I'm on a roll. It looks like someone is manufacturing artificial comments under the guise of independent participation to prop up his shaky positions. Now who could that be? Whose been naughty?
-i just had a look back at our "honest" debate. Immediately after I questioned the W.H.O. report two mysterious guests appear taking me to task. These two guests seemed uncanily similar to my nemesis. After I further clarified my position two more mysterious guests appeared who also took me to task. They too seemed remarkably similar to my nemesis, right down to the writing style and dopey extemist rhetoric. Now the Exact same thing happens when that nemesis mixes it up with John. Only this time the guests picked much more clever psuedonyms to post under. Three times is not a coincidence. That's pretty pathetic even for an intelectualy dishonest extremist like you Chungles. Its a desperate tactic that highlights the emptiness of that which you advocate. If you must sink so low you can't be saying very much. Now excuse me halftime is over.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
“And Socialism *doesn't* have a long history of working?”
Venezuela. Price of petroleum sky-rockets and they can’t seem to make money. Though you’ll probably just blame Chavez, which is partly true, I guess.
And socialism is the workers control of the means of production. I would know more, but I don’t study it for the same reasons I don’t study alchemy.
“They were reforms aimed primarily at tackling the racial discrimination and injustice of that time. African-Americans benefited immensely from the programs, many escaping the poverty Johnson had launched his 'War on'. “
Um, no, the reforms were meant to have those people on welfare get off it. There was a reason why we had huge welfare reform during the Clinton Era- it was to address the problems GS created.
“Rather than being ignored and left to die?”
Not the point of the program. It was designed to turn “dependent people to independent.”
“If only there were some big, costly war around that time that required huge numbers of soldiers who would eventually return home jobless that perhaps the Dems could point towards to defend this statement...”
Regardless of the war, he still got the funding for his program, as Dems controlled crap back then. Also, please don’t stereotype soldiers as nothing but a bunch of people with problems, as it’s so popular with the left.
“Perhaps the other networks are only occasionally mentioning it because a handful of scientists colluding to fudge stats maybe isn't exactly conclusive proof that there is a worldwide conspiracy by tree-huggers to get people to drive hybrid cars?”
Um, this isn’t just a few scientist lying, there are several- including John Holdren- President Obama’s science advisor. And haven’t you been reading the news? Cap-and-Trade? Kyoto Protocol? And fudging stats is not what they only did. They also destroyed papers to deny FoI request and several e-mails tell other to find ways to hide the decline and attack those who do not agree. Where is the science in that?
As for Russia Today, yes, I am aware of their biases but they managed to bring two respectable scientist to debate the letters as oppose to just ignoring them. Unlike others, I like to get my news from several outlets.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM
-i just had a look back at our "honest" debate. Immediately after I questioned the W.H.O. report two mysterious guests appear taking me to task. These two guests seemed uncanily similar to my nemesis.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
My god.. two different people who read things, and use logic and facts disagreed with the mighty GH? It MUST be a conspiracy!!
Posted By: Guest#2355 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 01:52 AM
just had a look back at our "honest" debate. Immediately after I questioned the W.H.O. report two mysterious guests appear taking me to task.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Except that you didn't question the report, you simply disregarded it without explaining why.
Posted By: Guest#2395 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 02:09 AM
I might as well bring this up too since I'm on a roll. It looks like someone is manufacturing artificial comments under the guise of independent participation to prop up his shaky positions.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Your paranoia is well justified Sting. Ha ha ha ha!
Posted By: The Black Scorpion (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:47 AM
---I was gonna stay out and be done with this but now I've been compelled. The CRU(climate research unit) was the major source of climate and temperature information that scientists based there now very questionable conclusions on. Not only did these people "fudge" the numbers as you say, it also seems extremely likely that they suppressed and destroyed any contradictory findings.---
The CRU is *one* of the leading centres on climate and temperature information. Its staff only numbers 30, and the leaked e-mails only concern a handful of those. No governmental scientists involved, despite the ignorant claims of your Fox watching brethren. To take that and then surmize that the whole of climate science is a crock of shit, as if they're all intentionally colluding for some undefined cause is of the utmost absurdity.
Now I personally have never been too swayed by the alarmist nature of these environmentalists. I've never been fully acceptant of the argument for such immediacy when it comes to climate control and behaviour. But, of course, with your right-wing media - still out to make a profit by exaggerating the differences between 'them' and the 'others' - emphasizing this story beyond its importance, alligning it to 'the left', you're obviously going to follow suite and think that simply because I've shown support for 'socialized medicine', and a clear disdain for the corporate-interests-over-journalistic-integrity of your media, that I must also fall into the category of Prius-driving, fart-sniffing enviro-nut. This nonsensical delineation of political allignment seems to know no grey area for you people.
Fact is, I'm not going to argue incessantly in support for these people, because I've never really given too much importance to their arguments. However, it is simply fact that this story revolves around a handful of individuals, each of whom makes a mockery of their vocation, but no more.
---I have no idea about the real truth of global warming although I always suspected that the doomsday proclamations were exagerated. ---
Exactly the same here. This is your problem, you're so ingrained with this 'you versus them' thinking that you're applying it to me without any apparent caution. I've only pointed out the facts of this story; unfortunately that appears to be to the detriment of the supposed importance much of your media is bestowing upon it.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:27 AM
---There is no way to glaze over or minimize what transpired with those scientists though. To do so is pathetic. Only an intelectualy dishonest rabid zealot could attempt to downplay what those "men of science" did.---
I'm not downplaying what they did. I'm downplaying the dishonest, rabid, zealotus coverage of what they did that is imprinting on their audience - morons like John - the impression that this is a worldwide conspiracy led by government scientists.
---How does this relate to a discussion of healthcare? To borrow a legal expression, it goes to credibility.---
The actions of a bunch of scientists in some climate centre in England and the policies and actions of the British government are in no way related. What a spurious link! By that line of reasoning, the fact my dad didn't come to watch me play football when I was 8 even though he said he would means the government has no credibility in their promises either. Absolutely ridiculous.
--- If you're willing to downplay what those clowns did and toss around idiotic terms like, "tree hugger conspiracy"---
Please tell me the reason for this alleged world-conspiracy to fudge and discard stats by a handful of scientists? What is the ultimate aim? That we drive hybrids?
---what other facts are you willing to downplay?---
The point is, I was 'downplaying' the insinuation that this was related to the government; that our 'government scientist' was involved. That isn't a "fact".
---What other truths are you willing to ignore when it serves your purpose? To what lengths will your rabid zeal drive your intelectual dishonesty?---
Once again, 'serves my purpose'? I don't allign myself stringently to one group and them relentlessly argue the merit of every issue in that tongue. We don't have a Fox News over here to create this imaginery divide. I've discredited the incorrect accusations by John that this 'Climategate' issue revolved around 'government scientists', and pointed to the obvious self-interests of those who are exaggerating the importance of the story, that is all. That doesn't mean I spend my weekends chaining myself to trees.
---You like to use a lot of empty rhetoric, clever catchphrases, not to mention convenient rewrites of fact and history. If those are the measures needed to prop up your broken ideaology then you need a new world view. You've thrown a lot of religion bad, profit bad, business bad, America bad, workers of the world unite bulls**t around and it all stinks. I won't go so far as to call you a commie but if the pinko shoe fits...---
Religion bad? Well yes, I'll give you that.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:28 AM
...
Profit bad? When on earth have I suggested that? What, because I'm aware of the self-interest of companies solely looking to make a profit and how that can affect the integrity of their news-gathering?
Business bad? I've said Fox News is bad so you extrapolate that to this wildly-exaggerated conclusion?
America bad? Really? That's how you've read this? I've stated on numerous occasions that my attacks are aimed solely at the likes of John and the zombified Fox News generation. I've mentioned on numerous occasions my dismay that these people are making a mockery of those people who admirably founded your nation. I've argued on numerous occasions my interests in the millions of disadvantaged Americans people like you continue to stick your middle finger up to. Yet I'm anti-American? Really? What a dumb conclusion.
I know that is part of the right-wing-media rhetoric, to put anyone who disagrees with your strict set rules as being 'anti-American', but any sensible reading of my contributions here would lead you to realise that I have far more faith and interest in Americans than many of you people purporting to be American.
Oh, and as for 'the workers of the world unite bulls**t'? I know that you seem to have become increasingly dumber the further you got into this tripe masquerading as a response, but that still deserves highlighting: when on Earth have I made any reference to that kind of thinking? Seriously, that is more ridiculous that your baseless attacks on my spelling and grammar earlier, for which you apologized. I can only hope you were drunk when you wrote this garbage and will sensibly apologize likewise for these pathetic empty accusations.
---Now that is something I will not be apologizing for. I meant every single damn word of it. If someone wants to have an honest discussion on healthcare, I'm all for it. I doubt you have the capacity for intelectual honesty though, you're a blinded brainwashed zealot. You've been given rope and at every chance given, you've hung yourself. You're extreme, perverted, dishonest ideology being your executioner. If you've represented the best arguements for socialized medicine in the U.S. then there is no arguement.---
There was an argument. You just chose to run away. How about you return to OUR fucking discussion and try to formulate a response?
---I believe that is check and mate.Now if you'll excuse me there's an AMERICAN football game on.---
Oooh, he's patriotic!
Seriously, this rule is universal when it comes to arguing on forums/blogs: the person that feels the need to award himself the title of 'winner' has *already lost*.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:29 AM
...
(Oh, and I'll choose not to lower myself to the level of even bothering to acknowledge that nonsense you later came out with when you were apparently "on a roll" - into your self-dug grave, I presume...)
---Venezuela. Price of petroleum sky-rockets and they can’t seem to make money. Though you’ll probably just blame Chavez, which is partly true, I guess.
And socialism is the workers control of the means of production. I would know more, but I don’t study it for the same reasons I don’t study alchemy.---
If you notice, I added a further post pointing out that I had mis-read your sentence with regards to working; I mistakenly interepreted your 'working' statement as being related to physical, manual labour, as opposed to your actual intention.
That being said, I'm mostly in agreement with you. As I've stated several times, I don't regard Socialism as being workable in today's society, and represents merely the utopian desires of the deluded.
Though I would advise you to research more on the theory. It *isn't* the big, evil meanie belief many idiots on here have had ingrained into them. Merely a good-intentioned but ultimately fruitless dream.
---Um, no, the reforms were meant to have those people on welfare get off it. There was a reason why we had huge welfare reform during the Clinton Era- it was to address the problems GS created.---
The reforms were meant to address that there were blacks and women at the time who were being disadvantaged, the former primarily, by a) not being afforded equal opportunites in employment, and b) not being completely excluded from welfare benefits in the first place. You can't completely discount the existence of a whole group of individuals one moment, and then decry the 'massive leap' in welfare beneficiaries when they're finally being acknowledged. That is some profoundly distorted logic.
---Not the point of the program. It was designed to turn “dependent people to independent.---
While also acknowledging that there was a vast number of people who weren't even allowed to be dependent in the first place.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:30 AM
...
---Regardless of the war, he still got the funding for his program, as Dems controlled crap back then. Also, please don’t stereotype soldiers as nothing but a bunch of people with problems, as it’s so popular with the left.---
Do not tar me with such baseless accusations. If you know anything about your history (you certainly seem a bit blurry around the whole 1960s-80s time) you'd know very well of the huge numbers of individuals who came back from Vietnam visibly and mentally unable to cope with the change; of the huge numbers of soldiers who returned to no longer have a job; to not be provided the sufficient help their efforts should have merited. That is merely a historical fact. Suggesting I'm insinuating soldiers are nothing but a bunch of people with problems is so completely out of line, it's insulting.
And while he "still got the funding", the growing costs of maintaining that ill-concieved war proved to the detriment of domestic policy. Read up on your history.
---Um, this isn’t just a few scientist lying, there are several- including John Holdren- President Obama’s science advisor. And haven’t you been reading the news? Cap-and-Trade? Kyoto Protocol? And fudging stats is not what they only did. They also destroyed papers to deny FoI request and several e-mails tell other to find ways to hide the decline and attack those who do not agree. Where is the science in that?---
There are three or four scientists involved in this apparent scandal. Their dishonest actions do not discredit the whole of the climate-change argument - they affect merely a smidgen of the several hundred lines of enquiry on the issue. Links to Holdren appear spurious at best.
I mean, *these* are facts. They're not related to any tree-hugging beliefs of mine, they're just facts. Yes, I totally agree their methods went completely against the idea of science, and they will no doubt discredit much scientific inquiries into the subject in the future, but the fact will always remain that this was an isolated case, involving only a few individuals who can be clearly seen as intentionally distorting stats so as to decieve towards their perspective. It's just a shame that a part of your media intentionally distorting stats so as to decieve towards *their* perspective can have such an influence on the uninformed.
---As for Russia Today, yes, I am aware of their biases but they managed to bring two respectable scientist to debate the letters as oppose to just ignoring them. Unlike others, I like to get my news from several outlets.---
Oooh, touche!
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:30 AM
....sorry i asked! lol
so is this what its like in 'real life' when people start talking about the heath care issue. Does it always get this heated?
oh, and gbh1978, you have a nemisis?? ok, thats kinda cool!
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:35 AM
As for Russia Today, yes, I am aware of their biases but they managed to bring two respectable scientist to debate the letters as oppose to just ignoring them. Unlike others, I like to get my news from several outlets.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Yeah? Like what? The different pages of the New York Times? Hippie Scumbag!
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I might as well bring this up too since I'm on a roll. It looks like someone is manufacturing artificial comments under the guise of independent participation to prop up his shaky positions. Now who could that be? Whose been naughty?
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on November 30, 2009 at 10:33 PM
You think THATs something? I found a singing frog on a construction site a few weeks back.
Posted By: Mac (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 02:56 PM
1
---I was gonna stay out and be done with this but now I've been compelled. The CRU(climate research unit) was the major source of climate and temperature information that scientists based there now very questionable conclusions on. Not only did these people "fudge" the numbers as you say, it also seems extremely likely that they suppressed and destroyed any contradictory findings.---
The CRU is *one* of the leading centres on climate and temperature information. Its staff only numbers 30, and the leaked e-mails only concern a handful of those. No governmental scientists involved, despite the ignorant claims of your Fox watching brethren. To take that and then surmize that the whole of climate science is a crock of shit, as if they're all intentionally colluding for some undefined cause is of the utmost absurdity.
Now I personally have never been too swayed by the alarmist nature of these environmentalists. I've never been fully acceptant of the argument for such immediacy when it comes to climate control and behaviour. But, of course, with your right-wing media - still out to make a profit by exaggerating the differences between 'them' and the 'others' - emphasizing this story beyond its importance, alligning it to 'the left', you're obviously going to follow suite and think that simply because I've shown support for 'socialized medicine', and a clear disdain for the corporate-interests-over-journalistic-integrity of your media, that I must also fall into the category of Prius-driving, fart-sniffing enviro-nut. This nonsensical delineation of political allignment seems to know no grey area for you people.
Fact is, I'm not going to argue incessantly in support for these people, because I've never really given too much importance to their arguments. However, it is simply fact that this story revolves around a handful of individuals, each of whom makes a mockery of their vocation, but no more.
---I have no idea about the real truth of global warming although I always suspected that the doomsday proclamations were exagerated. ---
Exactly the same here. This is your problem, you're so ingrained with this 'you versus them' thinking that you're applying it to me without any apparent caution. I've only pointed out the facts of this story; unfortunately that appears to be to the detriment of the supposed importance much of your media is bestowing upon it.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:18 PM
2
---There is no way to glaze over or minimize what transpired with those scientists though. To do so is pathetic. Only an intelectualy dishonest rabid zealot could attempt to downplay what those "men of science" did.---
I'm not downplaying what they did. I'm downplaying the dishonest, rabid, zealotus coverage of what they did that is imprinting on their audience - morons like John - the impression that this is a worldwide conspiracy led by government scientists.
---How does this relate to a discussion of healthcare? To borrow a legal expression, it goes to credibility.---
The actions of a bunch of scientists in some climate centre in England and the policies and actions of the British government are in no way related. What a spurious link! By that line of reasoning, the fact my dad didn't come to watch me play football when I was 8 even though he said he would means the government has no credibility in their promises either. Absolutely ridiculous.
--- If you're willing to downplay what those clowns did and toss around idiotic terms like, "tree hugger conspiracy"---
Please tell me the reason for this alleged world-conspiracy to fudge and discard stats by a handful of scientists? What is the ultimate aim? That we drive hybrids?
---what other facts are you willing to downplay?---
The point is, I was 'downplaying' the insinuation that this was related to the government; that our 'government scientist' was involved. That isn't a "fact".
---What other truths are you willing to ignore when it serves your purpose? To what lengths will your rabid zeal drive your intelectual dishonesty?---
Once again, 'serves my purpose'? I don't allign myself stringently to one group and them relentlessly argue the merit of every issue in that tongue. We don't have a Fox News over here to create this imaginery divide. I've discredited the incorrect accusations by John that this 'Climategate' issue revolved around 'government scientists', and pointed to the obvious self-interests of those who are exaggerating the importance of the story, that is all. That doesn't mean I spend my weekends chaining myself to trees.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:19 PM
3
---You like to use a lot of empty rhetoric, clever catchphrases, not to mention convenient rewrites of fact and history. If those are the measures needed to prop up your broken ideaology then you need a new world view. You've thrown a lot of religion bad, profit bad, business bad, America bad, workers of the world unite bulls**t around and it all stinks. I won't go so far as to call you a commie but if the pinko shoe fits...---
Religion bad? Well yes, I'll give you that.
Profit bad? When on earth have I suggested that? What, because I'm aware of the self-interest of companies solely looking to make a profit and how that can affect the integrity of their news-gathering?
Business bad? I've said Fox News is bad so you extrapolate that to this wildly-exaggerated conclusion?
America bad? Really? That's how you've read this? I've stated on numerous occasions that my attacks are aimed solely at the likes of John and the zombified Fox News generation. I've mentioned on numerous occasions my dismay that these people are making a mockery of those people who admirably founded your nation. I've argued on numerous occasions my interests in the millions of disadvantaged Americans people like you continue to stick your middle finger up to. Yet I'm anti-American? Really? What a dumb conclusion.
I know that is part of the right-wing-media rhetoric, to put anyone who disagrees with your strict set rules as being 'anti-American', but any sensible reading of my contributions here would lead you to realise that I have far more faith and interest in Americans than many of you people purporting to be American.
Oh, and as for 'the workers of the world unite bulls**t'? I know that you seem to have become increasingly dumber the further you got into this tripe masquerading as a response, but that still deserves highlighting: when on Earth have I made any reference to that kind of thinking? Seriously, that is more ridiculous that your baseless attacks on my spelling and grammar earlier, for which you apologized. I can only hope you were drunk when you wrote this garbage and will sensibly apologize likewise for these pathetic empty accusations.
---Now that is something I will not be apologizing for. I meant every single damn word of it. If someone wants to have an honest discussion on healthcare, I'm all for it. I doubt you have the capacity for intelectual honesty though, you're a blinded brainwashed zealot. You've been given rope and at every chance given, you've hung yourself. You're extreme, perverted, dishonest ideology being your executioner. If you've represented the best arguements for socialized medicine in the U.S. then there is no arguement.---
There was an argument. How about you return to that, OUR, discussion?
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:20 PM
4
---I believe that is check and mate.Now if you'll excuse me there's an AMERICAN football game on.---
Oooh, he's patriotic!
Seriously, this rule is universal when it comes to arguing on forums/blogs: the person that feels the need to award himself the title of 'winner' has *already lost*.
(Oh, and I'll choose not to lower myself to the level of even bothering to acknowledge that nonsense you later came out with when you were apparently "on a roll" - into your self-dug grave, I presume...)
One final thing: this accusation that I'm an "extremist"? Really? What political beliefs and principles have I expressed so far in this thread that could contribute to that conclusion?
That I support health-care for all? That I believe the system used in my country, where everybody contributes towards an institution that doesn't bar people affordable treatment because they're poor? That makes me an 'extremist'?
That I take an approach towards the story that leaked emails have implied the complicity of three or four scientists to intentionally distort statistics to support their climate-change suppositions DOESN'T represent a worldwide conspiracy by climate scientists? That I base that judgment only on the facts released? That makes me an 'extremist'?
That I don't decry the evils of Socialism, ignorantly failing to differentiate between that and Communism? That I actually acknowledge the ultimate failure that particular political theory would have in the modern world? That I express my advocation for the capitalist method? That makes me an 'extremist'?
Really?
Is this Bill O'Reilly issuing these accusations? I feel you're a post away from calling me a 'pin-head', gbh.
But this is not surprising. You've obviously succumbed to the Fox News marketing of news that I've made frequent reference to.
Fox, as a company with the primary intent to make money, has realised that to maintain viewership, it needs to become a 'brand', marketed towards a specific people. By creating these imaginery, never-to-be-crossed divides in political allignment, it is creating a market base out of people who will inevitably feel at home with their product. To ensure more viewers, Fox resorts to the same kind of illogical, irrational, innane rhetoric displayed so recently by gbh, wherein *anybody* expressing *anything* remotely divergent from their Conservative ideals is labelled as an 'extremist', a 'zealot', a 'fundamentalist'. This elimates any chance for their base to venture elsewhere, whilst also disparaging the credibility of their competition.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:22 PM
5
When Fox use it, it is because it then creates a defined 'other' for which people remain constantly hostile towards. When gbh uses it, he is merely regurgitating this mindless rhetoric because it has been so ingrained into his feeble mind.
You are a product of the corporate interests that lay behind your media, gbh. I am in no way an 'extremist' in as much as you're not a nazi or fascist. I don't ascribe to this nonsensical manouvering of any opposition to diametric extremes. It makes sense for a company to do so; it just makes you look like an idiot.
To BKS:
---Venezuela. Price of petroleum sky-rockets and they can’t seem to make money. Though you’ll probably just blame Chavez, which is partly true, I guess.
And socialism is the workers control of the means of production. I would know more, but I don’t study it for the same reasons I don’t study alchemy.---
If you notice, I added a further post pointing out that I had mis-read your sentence with regards to working; I mistakenly interepreted your 'working' statement as being related to physical, manual labour, as opposed to your actual intention.
That being said, I'm mostly in agreement with you. As I've stated several times, I don't regard Socialism as being workable in today's society, and represents merely the utopian desires of the deluded.
Though I would advise you to research more on the theory. It *isn't* the big, evil meanie belief many idiots on here have had ingrained into them. Merely a good-intentioned but ultimately fruitless dream.
---Um, no, the reforms were meant to have those people on welfare get off it. There was a reason why we had huge welfare reform during the Clinton Era- it was to address the problems GS created.---
The reforms were meant to address that there were blacks and women at the time who were being disadvantaged, the former primarily, by a) not being afforded equal opportunites in employment, and b) not being completely excluded from welfare benefits in the first place. You can't completely discount the existence of a whole group of individuals one moment, and then decry the 'massive leap' in welfare beneficiaries when they're finally being acknowledged. That is some profoundly distorted logic.
---Not the point of the program. It was designed to turn “dependent people to independent.---
While also acknowledging that there was a vast number of people who weren't even allowed to be dependent in the first place.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:23 PM
6
---Regardless of the war, he still got the funding for his program, as Dems controlled crap back then. Also, please don’t stereotype soldiers as nothing but a bunch of people with problems, as it’s so popular with the left.---
Do not tar me with such baseless accusations. If you know anything about your history (you certainly seem a bit blurry around the whole 1960s-80s time) you'd know very well of the huge numbers of individuals who came back from Vietnam visibly and mentally unable to cope with the change; of the huge numbers of soldiers who returned to no longer have a job; to not be provided the sufficient help their efforts should have merited. That is merely a historical fact. Suggesting I'm insinuating soldiers are nothing but a bunch of people with problems is so completely out of line, it's insulting.
And while he "still got the funding", the growing costs of maintaining that ill-concieved war proved to the detriment of domestic policy. Read up on your history.
---Um, this isn’t just a few scientist lying, there are several- including John Holdren- President Obama’s science advisor. And haven’t you been reading the news? Cap-and-Trade? Kyoto Protocol? And fudging stats is not what they only did. They also destroyed papers to deny FoI request and several e-mails tell other to find ways to hide the decline and attack those who do not agree. Where is the science in that?---
There are three or four scientists involved in this apparent scandal. Their dishonest actions do not discredit the whole of the climate-change argument - they affect merely a smidgen of the several hundred lines of enquiry on the issue. Links to Holdren appear spurious at best.
I mean, *these* are facts. They're not related to any tree-hugging beliefs of mine, they're just facts. Yes, I totally agree their methods went completely against the idea of science, and they will no doubt discredit much scientific inquiries into the subject in the future, but the fact will always remain that this was an isolated case, involving only a few individuals who can be clearly seen as intentionally distorting stats so as to decieve towards their perspective. It's just a shame that a part of your media intentionally distorting stats so as to decieve towards *their* perspective can have such an influence on the uninformed.
---As for Russia Today, yes, I am aware of their biases but they managed to bring two respectable scientist to debate the letters as oppose to just ignoring them. Unlike others, I like to get my news from several outlets.---
Ouch. You got me. Serially.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 03:24 PM
While I almost never agree with John, reading 20 different posts from Chungles gave me a headache. Really sir, you might want to get a hobby.
Posted By: Guest#3659 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 04:30 PM
Chungles, sometimes less is more.
Posted By: Guest#8237 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:00 PM
I wasn't drunk. As a matter of fact I don't drink, but maybe you were when you called my mind "feeble". I'm actually quite bright with an IQ about 75-80% of my body weight and I'm a tad under 200lbs.I won't get specific beyond that. I think you already know I'm no dummy though.
-Maybe I went a bit far in my McCarthy like commie rant. I won't apologize though, the reason being that its no worse than anything you do when you go on your ignorant American whose been zombified by Fox news rants. You cannot attempt to assume a moral highground when you actually have no moral highground! I'm no zealot, no zombie and for the last damn time I don't watch Fox news.
-I am all for fixing healthcare in this country. There are a lot of good people struggling due to no fault of their own. Sometimes life is just tough. I don't think that my country needs to go through a massive economic reformation to accomplish that goal though. Our system needs to be enhanced through common sense measures, not completely changed. Expansion of programs already in place, a severe crackdown on waste and fraud as well as meaningful tort reform will go a long way to solving our very real problems. It makes no sense to replace one imperfect system with another.
-I am no crazy rightwing loon. I am a common sense moderate with very eclectic views. I don't subscribe to any particular political philosophy because frankly none would welcome me. My opinions are too scattered, too various and I would never tow a party line. I'm more conservative on fiscal/defense issues but quite liberal on social issues. I'm pro choice as long as its not birth control. I'm pro gun control as long as RESPONSIBLE peoples rights are not decimated. I believe that treatment rather incarceration is needed for the majority of our citizens in prison for drug offenses. These are just a few examples and they are not the views of a brainwashed extreme right zealot. My more conservative views also are tempered with reason and logic.
-You however espouse very far left viewpoints and it seems to taint your perspective. Some of your views flirt with the extreme left border and any extreme view is never a good thing. You say I have an "us vs them" mentality. Maybe your correct, maybe it was just how I was raised. Look in the mirror though. That's the pot calling the kettle black. You do the same thing, except the "thems" are the ignorant brainwashed Americans.
-I just think your solutions are no solutions at all. They are merely swapping one set of problems for another more severe set of problems.
( As for the dope who posted under my name in response to BKS. Nice try but I don't cut&paste, I read the NY times and never use the word hippie. That was a really idiotic/borderline retarded thing to do. Grow up.)
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 08:36 PM
"I'm pro choice as long as its not birth control. I'm pro gun control as long as RESPONSIBLE peoples rights are not decimated. I believe that treatment rather incarceration is needed for the majority of our citizens in prison for drug offenses. These are just a few examples and they are not the views of a brainwashed extreme right zealot. My more conservative views also are tempered with reason and logic."
GBH,
I agree with almost everything you said. I also do not really care about gay marriage. Yet chungles will have everyone belive I am unintelligent mouth breather becuase I disagree with his health care and global warming nonsense.
I have posted my beliefs on health care in these articles several times in the past. I am fearful of the cost, the undo burdon on small buisness and rationing.
Typical chungles response" John dumb, fox bad."
Thats what the left does, if you disagree, then your stupid. Think like me and my country or your a moron. Its pregressive and nuanced.
I tried to respond to him, 411 never let it threw. Oh well, hope you enjoyed the game last night, Brees and the Saint D was on fire.
I expect another 6 part boorfest from the righteous one.
Posted By: John (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Btw chungles,
-All news companies are in the game to make a profit, not just Fox. Fox just happens to give a more conservative viewpoint on its OPINION shows because no other network does. Many people seem to appreciate this since the ratings are astronomical. So stop bringing up Fox news every other sentence please. You really, really sound obsessed. I realize that Fox gets a lot of panties in a bunch but your rap is getting tired.
-Its not just your obsession with Fox that's troubling though. Its your long winded, rambling, unfocused narratives that go nowhere. You're a lot more sizzle than you are steak. Add that to your pompous, condecending, holier than thou stink you have about you and its easy to see why I lost my cool a couple of times.
Posted By: gbh1978 (Guest) on December 01, 2009 at 10:05 PM
“The reforms were meant to address that there were blacks and women at the time who were being disadvantaged, the former primarily, by a) not being afforded equal opportunites in employment, and b) not being completely excluded from welfare benefits in the first place.”
And an ever bigger part of those reforms was meant to address turning tax drainers into tax payers, which it failed to do seeing as it doubled the amount of welfare recipients in the late seventies and people were living comfortably off it till welfare reform during the Clinton administration. LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton; that’s how long we had a problem of people taking tax payer money because it was “free” and no one bothered to go back to the programs roots of making them into productive members of society. Seeing as a larger portion of blacks today are still needing several of these services we can conclude that they have not been made into tax payers.
“If you know anything about your history (you certainly seem a bit blurry around the whole 1960s-80s time) you'd know very well of the huge numbers of individuals who came back from Vietnam visibly and mentally unable to cope with the change”
Yes, I know history. And while no one won’t deny soldiers returning were often met with hate, most of that came from the far-left who believed every story told by people claiming they were forced to kill innocent civilians. My uncle, who first migrated here to the states in the mid 60’s, told of how it was always “those damn hippies” who gave soldiers a hard time. He was able to find employment sometime after leaving the Navy along with several of his friends from the army and while I won’t deny the mental and socio problems several of them faced the problems are often overblown by people who demonized the armed forces.
I also find it funny how you go about the “interest of Fox News” when General Electric (Which owns NBC and all affiliates) is set to get out of its financial troubles if Cap and Trade go through. In then-candidates Obama’s own words: “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.” So forgive me if I don’t want my energy prices to skyrocket.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 01:46 AM
As for climategate, here are some of the highlights from the more damming parts.
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.”
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
“Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean”
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 01:47 AM
1
Okay, gbh, I'm growing tired of writing out prolonged retorts, so I'll keep this as brief as I can and just try to address your points in a more succinct manner.
The fact is, accusing me, so far, of being a KOS-reading, anti-business, anti-profit, anti-American, Socialist, Commie, extremist based solely upon the fact I've shown support for a health-care system and a sense of caution regarding a few scientists making a mockery of their profession DOES NOT equate or compare to *my* conclusions that based upon your knee-jerk accusations of said labels towards me, you're nothing but a product of the increasing Fox hegemony in America. I'm not labelling you a racist, Bible-bashing, homophobic, fascist, mysognynistic elitist; they're unfounded extremes based upon stereotypes of the political persuasion your expressed views have presented. You, however, have fell into that trap and, regardless of your immense IQ-to-body mass-ratio (well done...), it just makes you look like an idiot.
Many in my country didn't want to go through a massive economic reformation shortly after the end of World War II neither, but, as I've earlier stated, few now begrudge the worth of the system and the taxes it requires. Not just the pinko commie comrades I regularly plot revolutions with, *everybody* . Change is always hard for people to accept; it's always easier to 'conserve' the status quo. But the proposed change in your country isn't replacing "one imperfect system with another"; it's dismantling the corrupt system that has shown itself to be unfair with a system, though riddled with imperfections, proven to be far more successful - one that caters primarily towards *everybody*, rather than just those who can afford it.
Which reminds me, prior to you jumping in to assist the idiot, weren't we already involved in a conversation regarding a W.H.O. report you made spurious - still unproven - accusations towards? I know from that lengthy self-aggrandizing paragraph regarding your beliefs that your conservative views are 'tempered with reason and logic', but reason and logic are usually accompanied by arguments and premises to back them up: saying 'w.h.o. the fuck could take that report seriously?' then running away doesn't seem like the best examples of those admirable traits...
Now, to your next point: some of my views "flirt with the extreme left border"? Easy enough question- please can you elucidate that remark for me. Enlighten me as to what those "extreme views" of mine are. No running away now.
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 06:55 PM
2
As for swapping one set of problems for another "more severe" set of problems - once again, you've failed to explain that stance. I've shown you that America is considered to be ludicrously behind most democratic nations when it comes to health; even if you disagree with their lowly placing, no reason or logic could justify claiming a jump of 36 places. Yet somehow, despite this absolutely shameful position in the world when it comes to health-care, with the socialised health-care system populating the top of the charts, you still make this baseless claim that the more successful, humane and life-saving system is "more severe"?
Finally, I'm completely aware all news companies are in the game to make profit, but regardless, Fox's competitors still manage to retain a semblance of understanding as to what journalistic integrity *is*. Fox is almost a 24/7 opinion show, as opposed to the majority of its rivals, where they actually still attempt to maintain the 'news' aspect of their coverage. Fox is a predominant feature of my posts because the idiot I was responding to was so clearly regurgitating its rhetoric. And, regarding his 'government scientist' comment, its pitiful misinformation.
Oh, and really dude, you spent a whole paragraph talking about your sizeable IQ in relation to your BMI; I'm the pompous, condescending one?
BKS, you seem to be completely dismissing the fact that at the time of those reforms, a large portion of your population weren't even being employed because their pigmentation differed to that of employers. How does one become productive?
You go to war!
...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 06:56 PM
3
So... come the end of the war, vast swathes of men were returning to no jobs. Domestically, the country had suffered because of ambitions in foreign lands (hmm, sounds familiar - I guess wasting your taxes on these poorly-concieved wars is more to your liking that ensuring a blue-collar American can get health-care for his family...) and THIS, *THIS* is the point where you bring up these statistics (or rather, the point where detractors of welfare bring up these statistics). Surely that isn't a fair assessment? Surely some form of historical insight and inquiry is required before you exhibit these damning criticisms and empty stats?
Oh, and aren't there more white people on welfare in the US? And please don't give me this 'oh, but in relation to the *percentage* of the whole race, they're not' nonsense, as if that level of detail and thinking has ever been applied to the almost incessant portrayal of welfare beneficiaries in the US as blacks.
(I'll skip your lefties-hating-soldiers thing as it really isn't in relation to anything I said, rather a continuation of your own misinterpretations, aswell as the conspiratorial paranoia regarding a contextually-deformed quote and the subsequent refusal to look into the efforts by *now-President* Obama that aim to lower the eventual costs to consumers.)
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 06:56 PM
“I've shown you that America is considered to be ludicrously behind most democratic nations when it comes to health”
And yet America has the largest cancer survival rate than any other country- especially among males- because part of the treatment is being diagnosed for it.
“Fox's competitors still manage to retain a semblance of understanding as to what journalistic integrity *is*. Fox is almost a 24/7 opinion show, as opposed to the majority of its rivals, where they actually still attempt to maintain the 'news' aspect of their coverage.”
A few studies I’ve read show that Fox had the more balanced coverage of the 2008 election when compared to MSNBC, CNN CNBC, and HLN. We are also talking about MSNBC, whose anchors called West Point the enemy camp, showed obvious photoshop pictures of Sarah Palin, called the tea party protesters a bunch of racist, no exceptions, while showing edited footage of a black man (because there are no black conservatives), refused to say that the fort hood shooter said while shooting and tried to disprove and attack those who said he had ties with an extremist organization, and one of their host asked if it was illegal to call al queada. Also liked that you ignored that part about General Electric set to make millions if Cap and Trade goes through while they own NBC.
“BKS, you seem to be completely dismissing the fact that at the time of those reforms, a large portion of your population weren't even being employed because their pigmentation differed to that of employers.”
If you’re referring to affirmative action that did not happen until Nixon took office- way after LBJ left. LBJ’s Great society just created a welfare state, and I showed this by pointing to stats that dictate welfare recipients doubled.
“So... come the end of the war, vast swathes of men were returning to no jobs.”
First of all, government can only create X amount of jobs before going broke. The reason that we had such a large tax back then was because LBJ promised that it was the only way to help people. Many of these programs were continued with Nixon and Carter which explains the recession in the late seventies. And I’d like to see some stats that indicate that war can be bad for the private sector, as you’d be laughed at by several economist.
“Oh, and aren't there more white people on welfare in the US?”
Yes, that’s because they are the large majority. White’s are also the majority in the armed forces. It’s not surprising- you tend to be the majority when your people are the majority. Still doesn’t explain the large percent of blacks on welfare.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 05:47 PM
STAY CURRENT