|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-25 13:19, balducci wrote: Thanks & good stuff...one minor conflation fallacy -- Saying that X number of American don't have health insurance is not the same thing as saying they don't have healthcare.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-24 22:25, RJE wrote: Yeah, I live in the bay area. But I have learned, over a long period, not to share my thoughts to much on politics here.
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 02:51, kcg5 wrote: I always don my asbestos boxers first. They're itchy, and will probably give me mesothelioma, but at least the flames don't hurt as much.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
lebowski Veteran user 377 Posts |
Regarding all the closed-circuit round-the-clock cameras and scrutiny of nearly every street, park and other public space: How long will it be before some enterprising producer gets hold of this type footage and figures out how to compile it into a Reality Series?
|
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-25 10:41, EsnRedshirt wrote: That 47 million number reports anyone who was without insurance AT ANY TIME in the previous year. That means both my wife and I, who are insured are on that list. But read on...(caution: only read this link if you wish to educate yourself) http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?si......&u=w7J9N Don't let the facts get in the way of your ideas though. Keep in mind that with ObamaCare inevitably putting private healthcare out of business, hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs and send unemployment skyrocketing. I'm not saying healthcare doesn't need to be improved, but the way it's being gone about will cost us dearly.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
See what you're missing is that you assume all of those 46 million people are without and can not get access to health care coverage.
In fact tens of millions of them CAN GET ACCESS, most of the time FOR FREE but they CHOOSE not to. THEIR choice. Not mine. I CHOOSE to buy private insurance. The majority of those 46 million people already have access to FREE healthcare. They just don't. So now what? Give them NEW free healthcare? They still won't use it. They'll still show up at the ER for a sniffle. And no matter how FREE the healthcare is, Americans will still be allowed to file 20 million dollar lawsuits against a doctor because he didn't cure their cancer.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
The trouble with health care is that it makes us live too long. All mammals get 1 billion heart beats and so man should die at the age of 27.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
RobertBloor-
I'll use the base link instead of the facebook redirect, thanks. I believe it's here? http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/0......e-myths/ Oh. I see. Fox Business. Quote:
Don't let the facts get in the way of your ideas though. Fox news never lets facts get in the way of their ideas, either. I was kind of hoping for a non-biased source. I see they're using the 8.2 million number I mentioned in my earlier posts, and, yes- the "fact sheet" still cites the same Blue Cross Blue Shield study from 2003. The numbers are old. The math is suspect. Let's look at a few more of their Myths... Quote: More in the numerical reduction of uninsured. And I bet I can list some of the reasons why they 'choose' not to buy it. 1- It costs as much as they're paying for their mortgage per month. 2- No one will sell it to them, regardless of what they're willing to pay. My father-in-law takes two prescription drugs- one for hypertension, one for cholesterol. He started shopping for private insurance. Because he takes those two drugs, he was told, by company after company, that he was uninsurable, regardless of what he was willing to pay. Having pre-existing conditions can disqualify you from having private insurance. If you don't qualify for public insurance, you may not have the choice of buying private insurance.
"Myth: 'The uninsured can't afford to buy coverage.'... 38% of the uninsured likely make enough (+$50,000 a year) to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it." Quote: Why, if everyone is suddenly on the same footing, would everyone have to increase compensation? Say I'm thirsty, and everyone offers me a dollar and a bottle of water to shine their shoes. Suddenly, a drinking fountain is installed where I'm working. Am I now going to refuse to polish shoes for less than $2.95, even though everyone is still offering a dollar?
Myth: “Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.”...“Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,” the CBO says. “Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.” In fact... you know, five out of the nine "Myths" are refuted by the same report from the CBO; researchers don't rely on single sources. And Fox is not even citing their sources properly. The CBO report is a 196 page document, and none of the references even have a page number. Of the remaining four "Myths", one doesn't cite sources except for basic mortality statistics (not bothering to back up the rest of their argument), one doesn't cite sources at all, and one looks like the document that Fox actually copied their "Myths" from. I hate to pick apart sources, but neither Fox News nor any of its subsidiaries are trustworthy sources. And you never answered my question about which part of the government said that the public option will lose money. However, I think we're going to be at an impasse; it boils down to what RJE said- at the core, do you trust or mistrust the government? You choose to mistrust the government, and will usually be leary of any government-run programs. I choose to mistrust private corporations, so I'm usually leary of corporate-run programs.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 15:39, tommy wrote: If ever there was an argument against exercise, this would be it. Other heartrate-rising activities would require caution... John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
You disregard the numbers simply because it's from Fox.
Look closer. They're citing university studies, not Fox News bias. I'm sure if this was an MSNBC or CNN link you'd be okay with the information? Robert
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
Yes I'm disregarding the numbers because they're Fox. They've got a very poor record with the facts. They can't even keep track of whether p......blicans.
For the record, I did look at those links. They're not university studies. Five of them are from the same Congressional Business Office report. One more is a book. In its entirety. The last is a report done by a think tank. None of the sources cite a single page reference, meaning all of them could have been taken out of context. I'm not going to read through a 196-page report to see if five small pieces of information were used properly- this is why page numbers should be given when citing sources. Oh- I did scroll to the endnotes in the book and saw many of the sources quoted were online blogs. And, once again, where actual documents were referenced, there were no page numbers. MSNBC or CNN should be held to the same standards. When I see citations, I'm going to examine the primary source whenever possible. If it's a poor citation, it reflects poorly on the accuracy of the information in question.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
Is it a matter of trust or a matter freedom? You are not free when you need permission before you can do anything. The purpose of the camera are to catch you doing anything your not permitted to do. You are not permitted to show decent, unless you want to be called a terrorist, locked up by the Gestapo and tortured. But I don’t worry about the camera because I am a good citizen.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
EsnRedshirt Special user Newark, CA 895 Posts |
By the way, the Huffington Post article I linked above included screen captures as proof, which are primary sources, and independantly verifiable as being accurate. So I am holding them to the same standards.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.
* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt. |
|||||||||
nums Veteran user I have a life, or I would have more than 366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 18:40, EsnRedshirt wrote: The president cant recall how many states we have, whats your point? Name me one aspect of our lives that government is not already involved in, just one please. We left England over too much government, but where can I go now. NUMS |
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 18:45, EsnRedshirt wrote: hahaha So you'll disregard FoxNews but give credence to the ultra liberal Huffington Post blog. Rather than argue let's try and find common ground here. You're in favor of the government making medical decisions for you. That's fine. I happen to disagree but okay. Where is your line? Where do you say, "okay, the government can control this but not that?" How far is too far for government intrusion? We're sitting here talking about healthcare and I happen to think the gov has already gone miles beyond what's reasonable. But then I'm a libertarian. I'd rather be responsible for myself. You clearly are okay with the government being responsible for you. So let's talk about that. For you where is your line? Where do you say, it's okay for the government to be responsible for me here, but not there?
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 19:34, nums wrote: Good point. I wonder if Obama is factoring the cost of health care based on 57 or 58 states in our union? When will one of the unbiased media personalities from CNN or the Huffington Post publish an "Obama-isms" book? Or Biden's Blunders book? JOKES ASIDE...will we be better of with universal healthcare? Or will that just mean 47 million more people have the opportunity to sue doctors for not curing cancer? TORT REFORM FIRST.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
RJE Inner circle 1848 Posts |
You seem to forget your historical roots. Locke, Montesque, Hobbes..... are the thinkers your government and society are based on.
You've got the "individual rights" part down, but you seem to conveniently omit the fact that all of the thinkers you base your society on also said that the individual must give up some of their personal rights and freedoms in order to enjoy the benefits of government. There is no such thing as a modern society in which its members enjoy total freedom. In fact, that was the very thing that these philosphers (that American society is created from) argued would be very much against an individual's best interest. So you created a country that was free from the tyranny of any monarch or divine right of birth. You set up your checks and balances. You have the ability of choice in who you wish to govern you. You can criticize your government openly. You have a federal system of powers distributed to different levels. You have direct involvement with your representatives available to you. And yet you still distrust them. It is an enigma for many others who observe this behaviour. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
1) I'd rather a doctor decide on healthcare decisions, as under Medicare, than an HMO profit maximizer decide as under my current private insurance.
2) So it's okay for millions of Americans, like public hospital workers, to lose their jobs, but not alright if private health companies fire employees? 3) If public health care is so wrong and wasteful, why are the private companies afraid of the competition? Won't the market work in their favor? 4) Why shouldn't I allowed to be able to sue you for your incompetence? I thought libertarians believed in personal responsibility and accountability. 5) Good question about where government should be responsible. I don't think this can be answered in the abstract without context. In the current world, where gross inequalities in power and wealth accrue, where the strong regularly exploit the weak, I think an important function of government is to bridge the gap between wealthy and poor. Thus, education, healthcare, and careful monitoring of the entitled entities we call corporations are all vital government functions at the the present time. I appreciate your honest expression of your opinions. Oh, and I think camera surveillance by government or private entities is an abomination.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I'll give my answers to four of 'em for the fun of it!
1) I'd rather a doctor decide on healthcare decisions, as under Medicare, than an HMO profit maximizer decide as under my current private insurance. Anser: I agree 2) So it's okay for millions of Americans, like public hospital workers, to lose their jobs, but not alright if private health companies fire employees? Answer: I say they shouldn't be exempt, if their little business goes away then they can be unemployed just like me....punks. 3) If public health care is so wrong and wasteful, why are the private companies afraid of the competition? Won't the market work in their favor? Answer: money money money! 4) Why shouldn't I allowed to be able to sue you for your incompetence? I thought libertarians believed in personal responsibility and accountability. Answer: The problem is people sue for any reason and for no reason. Are you always competent? Is anyone? If a drug is invented where it helps 1000 people live but it causes a rash for 2 people you have no problem with those two being represented by a law firm who sues the medication out of existance then gives $100 to those with the rash? No matter what someone will not react as everyone else does to treatment, that doesn't make the company or doctor a target for a suit, shouldn't at least. Say a doctor is treating someone and the treatment saved the last 600 people he did it to but this looser of a patient dies, should the doctor sue the estate of the patient for f'ing up his average? I mean, if the patient wasn't so weak and didn't have some genetic flaw he would have lived and the doctor wouldn't have had to deal with the stress of losing the patient as well as future income expected in treatment. |
|||||||||
RobertBloor Inner circle The Socialist Republic of the USA. 1051 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-06-26 22:15, landmark wrote: #3 - Look at it the same way small business looks at WalMart coming to town. Low prices yes. But cr**py service and they put everyone else out of business. #4 - Gross negligence is the term you're looking for. And absolutely you should be able to file a suit for that. The problem is until we get tort reform, doctors will... A) Continue to order tens of thousands of dollars in tests that aren't necessary just to cover-their-*ss. B) Pay tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands a year in malpractice premiums. One of my doctors pays $40,000.00 in annual premiums. $40,000! In some cases the hospitals will cover those premiums. In others they pay out of pocket. Keep in mind I'm not saying healthcare should stay as is. There are certainly some fixes that need to be made. My biggest fear is... A) The government will appoint a bureaucrat to make decisions. Right now even in insurance companies it's a doctor making a decision. I've had several health care claims denied before. My doctor calls their doctor and confers and the issue is immediately resolved. B) This program is going to complete the bankruptcy of America. There's no question about it. It's not financially possible to pay for this. It is of a magnitude that this world has never seen. C) The government will use private medical information against me. Paranoia? Okay fine. Oh and don't forget D) The Constitution does not permit the Federal government of the United States to do this. For those of you who trumpet first amendment issues for buskers, you should be rabidly against this issue also.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"
-The Declaration of Independence |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Camera surveillance (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |