Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

No more lies

collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 6:54:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.newsweek.com...
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 3:25:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/16/2010 8:59:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I definitely enjoy reading things that merely strengthen my beliefs

hahaha and let me guess, you simply disregard the rest? Or maybe you only look for and read the things that you want to hear?

Personally, I find it hard to blame someone for distorting facts when the other side flat out disregards them.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 3:30:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/16/2010 3:25:44 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:

Personally, I find it hard to blame someone for distorting facts when the other side flat out disregards them.

Perfect.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 3:59:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyway I'm neither here nor there on national health care atm, but a few things about the article:

1. The first thing it points out is that the argument emergency costs will go down (because the uninsured use the ER) is not true. Well DUH!!! Holy friggin crap - this article makes it sound as if it's a big surprise that 80% of ER visits are from people who are insured. About 70% of people DO have health insurance so this number is not shocking at all whatsoever. Not to mention that those without insurance avoid the ER as well as regular doctors; I don't have insurance and refused to go to the ER/doctor when I sprained my ankle about 2 months ago. It still hasn't healed... so yeah. I'm not looking for sympathy lol I'm just pointing out the obvious that even the uninsured have to pay for ER visits so this is kind of a retarded point.

2. Then the article says that it might not be true that giving everyone care will make them healthier. Well no sh-t! Obviously factors like preexisting conditions, diet, habits, etc. will affect one's health regardless of their insurance. However, it's pretty obvious that those who can get help probably will and thus improve their health. Again, a personal example is me spraining my ankle really badly 2 months ago but avoiding a doctor because I couldn't afford the bill. So far my ankle is still in bad shape preventing me from doing a lot of things I wish I could (ie. exercise... which would improve my health - just sayin) and taking a lot longer than it should to be healing.

3. The article is kind of hypocritical and somewhat fallacious. For instance, "Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite..." and then goes on to explain how people spend more when there's care for all. However, I think it's pretty obvious that Obama means it checks spending in the sense that it will introduce competition for private insurance companies, thus lowering costs of insurance - not the cost of care or supplies itself.

Also, didn't the article also say that the uninsured make up 50-70% of hospital visits? So if the uninsured make up most of the visits now, how can you say granting insurance will also make visits increase? That doesn't make any sense considering those who ARE insured already don't utilize it as much. It makes more sense to look at the individuals going to the hospital and their particular situations rather than make a broad statement like that. Anyway this argument appeals to emotion so the author should just be straight up and say he doesn't give a **** about other people's health care and nobody else should either... instead of making a BS argument with some loopholes.

This part I agree with 100 percent:

Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2010 4:06:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more.
If we change the taxes they'll be easy to control for those who want to because no one will pay for anything they don't think worth the money.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2010 11:52:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/16/2010 3:25:44 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 3/16/2010 8:59:10 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
I definitely enjoy reading things that merely strengthen my beliefs

hahaha and let me guess, you simply disregard the rest? Or maybe you only look for and read the things that you want to hear?

Personally, I find it hard to blame someone for distorting facts when the other side flat out disregards them.

that's how ignorance is justified, by ignoring pertinent facts.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2010 11:55:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
INB4 this turns into a R_R user fee thread.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to