All three of those statements are in fact true.

I was talking about you.
I don't get my news from TV or newspapers.
And at your age if you don't know what racism is, you are one.

The devil wears Pravda.....on his cock.

Plus 1 fuckwit point for defending George Bush. I don't care how you feel about your current leader's health care plan, nobody with your intelligence should be in that fool's corner

Doctors are already hamstrung in their decision making ability by private insurance companies (see above, they don't want interference from insurance companies OR government bureaucrats in decision making) and by being forced to provide defensive testing/procedures to protect themselves against lawsuits.

So we should make it worse?

It depends on how it's implemented.  Comparative effectiveness can be a good tool - if a fancy new antibiotic isn't as effective as plain old penicillin for a particular infection for example, that's a good thing for a doctor to know.  If two treatments are comparable, it would be nice to have data to combat bias towards technology and pick the cheaper treatment.  

If you start giving the government a say in refusing or mandating treatments based on cost, then I would find it unacceptable.  That seems to be the divide in what I've read about doctor's opinions - tools to help make decisions are nice.  Administrators deciding that they're going to interject themselves into the decision making is not so nice.  It's the problem they have with insurance companies now.


But I'm not really out to defend whatever the Obama administration is putting forward.  I think health care reform is an issue that must be tackled but I think both sides of the debate are dicks and unwilling to betray the lobby groups that would let them write an effective bill.

I hate to break it to you, but Madison's view of limited federal government died a long, long time ago.  The downward spiral away from limited federal government started pretty much as soon as it opened for business.

 So it isn't rape, if she's not a virgin?

Nope. just means that Madison's views didn't win in the final direction of the country.  There were a variety of views about what various aspects of the constitution meant.  Madison had a very different view from Hamilton on the meaning of the General Welfare clause, for example.  Hamilton's view won out when it finally ended up in the Supreme Court.

Not even the Africans?

What about the Indians, Indonesians, etc?

What about these people:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/01/07/omitted-soldier-tells-bush-next-time-pick-shoe-throw-it-back

Compare this to:

http://www.imao.us/archives/010256.html

Compare:

Different Presidents, A Different Corps

Bush's appearance was after the Surge began, which is to on the heels of the worst days of the Iraq campaign.

But I know, the talking heads tell you to hate the man, to hate anyone who doesn't, and they know better, right?

And by never questioning your assumptions, you will guarantee you are always right, forever, correct?

you think Mosh walks around with electrodes on his nuts?

I'm tempted to now that you put it that way...

http://www.slate.com/id/2228110/pagenum/all/

Perspective from a site that's about as fair and balanced as the ones Balor's been reading.

"Read the sign! Read the sign!"




And I've hated Bush since the first time he opened his phony mouth.

The "public option" rhetoric is meaningless. When the plan on the floor will constrict private ensurers out of existence and requires citizens by law to some form of insurance or pay signifigant fines, it isn't a fucking option. Do you seriously believe that giving everyone within the united states "free" healthcare is not going to see an increase in people showing up at the hospital or doctor's office for utterly stupid little matters? Wait... isn't your whole idea to dump 47 million more people into the medical field's work load? Do you seriously believe that doctors will enjoy seeing the culmination of the first thirty years of their life being spent in school resulting in a career of having their professional medical opinion overridden by the regulations of bureaucrats? Do you think you will see an increase in enrollments toward becoming a "rich bastard" doctor when the plan is to dump as much of the expense of this scam as possible onto those within the "rich bastard" pay scale? Do you think increasing the the patient load while decreasing the number of qualified doctors will improve the standard of treatment?

I'm not necessarily backing the current plan on the floor. My point is that this visceral reaction to anything Ann Coulter brands as socialist is uncalled for. There are ways to make universal government health-care work if we're willing to compromise, if we have a shred of compassion, and if we think with our brains instead of our guts.

I think you totally missed my point about how the 47 million currently go to the hospital to wear down the harried ER staff because they have no health insurance but need care. I think you missed my argument that these "free" ER visits are currently paid for by those who do have insurance in the form of higher premiums. My point here was that by giving the 47 million a government plan and letting them go to the doctor's office instead of the ER, the ER would not have to charge the insured as much, premiums would go down, and they would be replaced by taxes used to support the public plan. Basically it's a reshuffling of resources into the most natural and useful orientation.

The arguments about doctors getting all sad because taxes will hit them harder for being richer then us and that this depression would cause them to stop working so hard so they could slip down into the comfortable tax brackets that the folks who live in trailer parks dwell in is insane. You're not alone in this view at all. This seems to be the whole right wing tax theory. I just don't believe it for a minute. My impression is that higher taxes reduce incentive but absolutely do not provide disincentive. Apart from the gentle sarcasm, am I misstating it? Isn't the idea that if taxes hit you harder as you get richer then you'll just decide to stop getting richer in revenge/depression?

Is fifty-three percent overwhelming? ... [http://www.rasmussenreports.com], [http://www.rasmussenreports.com], [http://www.rasmussenreports.com]

I was talking about 2006. Also: Rasmussen. I didn't cherry pick the polls I referenced. I gave 1 left, 1 right, and 2 middle views. All agree that there are more that want some kind of public program that that don't.

Are you familiar with this:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

I see no prohibition of public welfare options. I do see entitlement to impose it, though.

Anyway this is getting insane. I have no time for this any more. I'm tapping out.

Just for you Zoomie, a jackbooted nationalist thug:



Check out all that white supremacy that was going on at the LA protest:

Tea Party - Los Angeles


How many fingers is Obama holding up? How many? How many? How many?

"You people"?!

What do you mean, "you people"?

Hahahahaha omg NOW I remember why I read this board.

http://www.slate.com/id/2228110/pagenum/all/

Perspective from a site that's about as fair and balanced as the ones Balor's been reading.

And HOW MANY TIMES does anyone have to tell you that FactCheck.org IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY The Annenberg Foundation, who ALSO were involved in the ACORN scandals.

Where have you been?!?

You CANNOT cite a site that "the man" OWNS.  Cripes.

I think you missed the point of Si's post.

It was intentionally posted as a joke, I believe.

The rest of what you say, I have no opinion on.

Fox News is owned by the Bilderburg Group! I know you think it's some old Aussie cock knocker but they own his soul too!!!

It's true, I read it in Glenn Beck's Blog!!!

And if you're going to cite the obvious "glory seekers,"

let's start with your hero, eh?

How many lies has he told, Zoom?  Blatant, Bald-Faced, Straight-Up Lies?

Well, to start, watch this video:

Barack Obama Lies To America

i'm going to watching another one:

Top 20 Obama Pastor Comments You Never Saw

Those are both about the same issue, blatant lies told by Obama, and those weren't even the start of it all.

Remember, it is those who oppose Obama that are the violent, bitter, fascist thugs:

 HOLY SHIT WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT.

DO NOT LOOK AT THAT.

Bill Clinton never got this much hate, must have been the smiling white mug.


I'm going to duck out of this thread too, because it's just name-calling now. However from a fiscal point of view your country needs to do something about health care. Too many people making too much money, and not enough sick get healed. This will sink what is left of the US economy if it does not get fixed. I like that your president had the balls to take this on.

I wish people talked about Gordon Brown.
He's just not interesting enough.
Damn one eyed scots.

The devil wears Pravda.....on his cock.

You really shouldn't know that.

Bill Clinton got plenty of hate, and is widely known as a sleeze in the US.

Obama is being opposed in direct proportion to his and congressional Democrats' attempts to turn this country into their statist social experiment.

Balls? BALLS? Yeah, it takes a lot balls to tell Israelis' they shouldn't build houses on their own land in one breath, then in the next that you don't want to butt in on Iran's internal matters as the Islamist government massacres protesters, and then in the next breath condemn Honduras and attempt to bully it into readmitting a would-be dictator-for-life backed by dictator-for-life Chavez and his mentor, dictator-for-life Castro.

 In other news, Obama's precious ACORN is apparently about to explode as more tapes revealing their utter corruption are coming out. Don't hold your breath on getting any shocking exposes from the usual suspects. In fact, I believe NBC is still trying to vilify those who went undercover.

As for health care:

Perhaps those interested in insurance reform should first understand why millions of Americans are uninsured in the first place, and to identify who of those cannot afford current health insurance plans. Of the 47 million uninsured, the U.S. Census Bureau notes that almost 10 million are not U.S. citizens, many of whom are illegally in the country. Another 15 million adults do not need significant insurance reform, because they are already fully eligible for Medicaid or Medicare but simply have not signed up, and will be enrolled as soon as they interface with the medical system. And nearly three quarters (74%) of the 8 million uninsured children are already eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, according to the Urban Institute.

This leaves us with 13.9 million non-elderly adults (only 5% of the population, by the way) without health insurance who do not already qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Of these, Blue Cross Blue Shield estimated that 8.2 million are without insurance for prolonged periods of time, mainly due to lack of affordability, while 5.7 million adults lack health insurance for short periods because they are either between jobs, are recent college graduates, are part-time seasonal workers or have no perceived need for insurance.

So let's focus on these roughly 14 million Americans who are uninsured, for prolonged periods or otherwise, because they either cannot afford it, or they opt to not purchase it, presumably because they do not view it as good value for their money. Even though 9 million of these live in families with incomes greater than three times poverty level, or over roughly $60,000 per year, it always has been up to American consumers to decide for themselves if something is "affordable" or not. The goal is to reform health insurance markets so that health insurance is made more affordable, so that it may be purchased because individuals themselves determine it is worth spending their money on.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/08/health-care-competition-reform-opinions-contributors-obama-speech.html

Give it a read, then ask yourself on what basis does the left immediately answer everything with a plan to make people more dependent on government programs they control, regardless of the alternatives.

Israel is building on occupied land in violation of international law.

Iran is a domestic issue which the US government has voice an opinion on.

How the fuck are the Golan Heights, land captured from Syria after they attempted to invade and destroy Israel "occupied land".

Do you even know why Israelis build settlements there? I'll give you a hint: look at a relief map.

I'm going to duck out of this thread too, because it's just name-calling now.

And ^THAT's ^ what i don't get ~ i CALL the man a liar, i PROVE the man a liar, in side-by-side VIDs,

and the response at THAT point is the above.

ANYtime any ACTUAL proof is offered, that shows, without a DOUBT, that the man is a liar,

his proponents  MUST Run And Hide from it.

Why?  Why can't you stay, LISTEN TO THE VIDs, and argue with the proof,

INSTEAD OF THE MESSENGERS?

And that IS a real question.

How the fuck are the Golan Heights, land captured from Syria after they attempted to invade and destroy Israel "occupied land".

Do you even know why Israelis build settlements there? I'll give you a hint: look at a relief map.

Israel have been land theives for quite awhile now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Historical_timeline

And lets not forget Israel's public thinking it's occupied land

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights_Law

While the Israeli public at large, and especially the law's critics, viewed it as an annexation, the law avoids the use of the word

 Are you seriously arguing that would be a really keen idea for Israel to abandon the high ground that gives them radar over Syria (and thus discouraging another attempt at invasion), and just twiddle their thumbs as the self-exiled Jordanians (you would call them "Palestinians") set up artillery in the hills to rain down on the Jews they have sworn to annihilate, and possibly cut-off or poison one of Israel's main water sources?

 What is it that is so unique about Israel, that when they are threatened with invasion by another nation, and capture land from the aggressor, they are by some contortion of culpability accused of aggression and thievery?

 You want to talk historical time lines?

Okay:



"Judea" is the word from which we get "Jew", if you were not already aware.

 The "Pillistines", from which we later got "Palestine" were Hellenic colonists, who were later wiped out by the Phoenicians. Ironic, since the very name "Phillistine" essentially means "invader".

 Get that? No Palestinians. They're dead. Have been for thousands of years.

 The exile Jordanians, who exiled themselves right before the rest of the Arabs attempted to invade Israel on the promise that after the genocide they could come back and reclaim the lands they abandoned, and in some cases even sold to Israelis before leaving, have no cultural, genetic, or historic connection to the long-dead Palestinians.

 The only connection that they do have is in that the Romans, to punish rebelious Judeans, at one point renamed the province of Judea "Palestine", saying a big fuck you to their cultural identity. The British later, unwittingly, labeled Israel "Palestine" when they were carving up their own maps. Those who call themselves "Palestinians" today are nothing more than the descendants of Jordanian immigrant workers who migrated to Israel because there was work there, then ran off when they were given a chance to profit from fucking over a bunch of Jews from the Dar-al Harb.

 Their little gambit didn't pan out quite as expected, and the rest is history... or should I say the rewriting of history to fit into a pro-jihad narrative, along with some Marxist angles tossed in during the 70's to gain sympathy with naive Westerners.



PS- Jordanian flag:



"Palestinian" flag:



Notice anything?

Canaanites. Moron. Predate Jews. End of story.

Oh Jesus, now you've gone full blown retarded.

The "Canaanites" were the Phoenicians. Still not Jordanian.


You're in Australia, right?

And white?

Get the fuck out, occupier.

And don't think you can go back to Ireland, either. That belongs to the Fomorians, you foreign aggressor!

No. The Phoenicians were a sub group of the Canaanites.


Where do you live?