Healthcare town hall battles

Saturos

Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
1
this is what you're up against:



she could have been vice president. stupid permeats from the bottom right to the top
So your saying Palin ignorantly succumbed to alarmist rhetoric too or is she just one of the many republicans spreading lies?
The, "vicious cycle of stupidity" as you described. heh

Would people with down syndrome really benefit from Obama's healthcare reform too?

Fill me in so I can "formulate my own opinions". How does socialized medicine really work if it isn't the death penal for non-productive members of society like Palin says it is?

BTW, this reminds me of some republican ad I saw on TV the other day disputing similar claims. Except it was about long waiting lists for heath concerns that required immediate attention.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
So your saying Palin ignorantly succumbed to alarmist rhetoric too or is she just one of the many republicans spreading lies?
The, "vicious cycle of stupidity" as you described. heh
I think it's a little from colunm A and a little from coloumn B with a healthy dose of stupid thrown in for good measure

Would people with down syndrome really benefit from Obama's healthcare reform too?
in canada we have free healthcare. it doesnt mean we send our mentally challenged adrift on ice floats just because they're non productive and we cant waste money on providing for the unproductive. really I dont understand how anyone could believe something so freakin ludicrous

Fill me in so I can "formulate my own opinions". How does socialized medicine really work if it isn't the death penal for non-productive members of society like Palin says it is?
it means they extend coverage if they currently have no coverage. it's not assisted suicide for the mentally infirm as some republicans would have you believe



BTW, this reminds me of some republican ad I saw on TV the other day disputing similar claims. Except it was about long waiting lists for heath concerns that required immediate attention.
yes I've seen something similiar on US tv comaring it to the canadian system and it was alarmist and completely inaccurate



Victemofscience said:
They are so unabashedly right-wing that any other view gets straight-up ridiculed.
the old shout them down so they wont be heard trick. it's worked wonders in the past and in the not so distant past
 

Saturos

Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
1
in canada we have free healthcare. it doesnt mean we send our mentally challenged adrift on ice floats just because they're non productive and we cant waste money on providing for the unproductive. really I dont understand how anyone could believe something so freakin ludicrous
That sounds alot worse than just simply not having heathcare, but your just being sarcastic right? :|
 

PvtRyan

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
10,027
Reaction score
0
Any of you following all the drama involving these health care town hall battles? It's pretty entertaining stuff.

You have these town hall meetings talking about health care, and a bunch of conservatives show up shouting down everybody and drowning out all form of dialog other than yelling and screaming.
THEY TOOK OUR DOCTOR!

DEY TUK UHR DUHCTR!

DURK A DUR!
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
it still baffles me as to why anyone who wasnt insane or extremely rich wouldnt want access to free healthcare. ..probably because the insurance industry is pulling their strings, I mean what other reason could anyone have for dismissing the idea of providing healthcare for every last man woman and child in america?
It's not free. If you can't grasp that simple (and very important) point, then it invalidates everything else you're saying too.

You're being just as closed-minded as the people you're ridiculing.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
sweet sweet irony:

right wing idiot protests at townhall meeting against healthcare reform, gets into fight and is injured ...has NO HEALTH INSURANCE, lololololol



and I'm sure there's tons of conservatives willing to pay for his medical expenses. call it social assistance, call it a handout, call it being a ****in hypocrite


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php
Again, you manage to completely miss the point in a truly spectacular fashion. This isn't about whether people get their healthcare paid for or not, it's about the role and power of the state over the individual. Ironically I think you will find that conservatives give considerably more to charity than liberals do. Of their own free will, not because the state stole their money and redistributed it.

Ultimately, taxation is theft. It may be necessary theft, but it is theft nonetheless.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
It's not free. If you can't grasp that simple (and very important) point, then it invalidates everything else you're saying too.

You're being just as closed-minded as the people you're ridiculing.
The phrase we use here in the United Kingdom is "free at the point of use".

That means you don't get turned away from hospitals or treatment and you don't get parasitic insurance people coming and pestering you when you're sick.

We Brits are notoriously reserved right? Well there's one thing no Government in 64 years has ever dared to try and take away from us - our (that's "our", not "the","our") NHS. Why? Because its the one thing (probably) my notoriously reserved nation would get off its ass and riot to protect.

Perhaps that tells you we're onto a good thing here?

Let's put our Economist hats on and look at the Insurance sector as a part of the Economy. Most insurance is actually a good thing - it shifts risk away from those who are unwilling to bear it, to those who are. So if you own a house and are unwilling to bear the risk that it gets destroyed in a hurricane, you have it insured right? And then in turn, some guy somewhere who's willing and able to bear that risk attempts to make a small profit in doing so. Fairs fair.

Now look at health insurance. Some trader, somewhere, is effectively taking a bet on survival rates for the population. In a way, he's taking a bet on individual people's survival rates. He's willing to take that risk. You're not willing to bear the burden of ultra-expensive modern healthcare so you take out a policy.

Here's the thing. Hurricanes are pretty black and white. Your house either gets trashed or it doesn't. Someone's health is open to a great deal of interpretation. In terms of diagnosis, treatment and management of illness there are many choices and the whole thing is quite subjective.

Therefore when things are open ended like this, how do you think the company is going to behave? They're motivation is profit, so of course they're going to try and squeeze you. Do people enjoy being squeezed when they're ill? I know I wouldn't be.

The funniest thing about this whole charade is that the insurance sector doesn't even produce any economic benefit to the country, especially in terms of reallocation of risk.

Here's the thing. People always get sick and die. The business, if you can even call it that, is the one of the biggest scams od modern times, in America at least. There's barely any risk as the trend rates of death and life expectancy are stable and predictable. In rich Western countries people tend to die at a fairly stable rate and in a predictable pattern on an aggregate level. It is a LICENCE to print money. There's no efficiency gained from reallocating risk as a service which the Government could just as easily provide.

Added to that, since there is no efficiency in the reallocation of risk, what actual benefit does the health insurance industry provide to the American economy? It is not something which can be sold abroad to improve the current account. It is not a new technology which can be developed into new products. It is not a new approach to service provision which increases efficiency. It is simply shuffling wealth which already exists domestically around the economy from the hands of individuals to the hands of private companies.

Now that can be said for most services, but most service provision businesses are not risk free. Right?

I'm all for risk and reward and entrepreneurialism. What I'm not for is private companies scamming people and effectively having a licence to print money in a service provision business which entails no real risk.

Why are roads in the public domain? Because there's no risk that they'll go unused. Private provision would be patchy and leave vast tracts of the country uninhabitable and underdeveloped.

MARKETS SOMETIMES FAIL: ECONOMICS 101
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
The phrase we use here in the United Kingdom is "free at the point of use".

That means you don't get turned away from hospitals or treatment and you don't get insurance people coming and pestering you when you're sick.

We Brits are notoriously reserved right? Well there's one thing no Government in 64 years has ever dared to try and take away from us - our (that's "our", not "the","our") NHS. Why? Because its the one thing (probably) my notoriously reserved nation would get off its ass and riot to protect.

Perhaps tell you we're onto a good thing here?
"Free at the point of use" means something entirely different from "free".

Whether or not it is a good thing is presently irrelevant, if you can't grasp the underlying concepts which the issues revolve around, then your opinion is ill-founded.

CptStern clearly has no capacity to understand the point of view of anyone else. He just finds these idiots and then stereotypes everyone that opposes him as being one of them.

He clearly has a value system that values the "greater good" over individual liberty. Other people value individual liberty over the "greater good". Some people disagree with nationalised healthcare because their value system is intrinsically different, and evidently Stern is unable to picture the world from any perspective other than his own. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
"Free at the point of use" means something entirely different from "free".

Whether or not it is a good thing is presently irrelevant, if you can't grasp the underlying concepts which the issues revolve around, then your opinion is ill-founded.

CptStern clearly has no capacity to understand the point of view of anyone else. He just finds these idiots and then stereotypes everyone that opposes him as being one of them.

He clearly has a value system that values the "greater good" over individual liberty. Other people value individual liberty over the "greater good". Some people disagree with nationalised healthcare because their value system is intrinsically different, and evidently Stern is unable to picture the world from any perspective other than his own. :rolleyes:
I agree, of course it does. I didn't have an opinion on your original post to be honest, I was just using it to put across a UK viewpoint as to differing interpretations of what the word "free" can mean when it comes to healthcare provision.

For example, if we were debating face to face, I would probably use the stock phrase:

"It's interesting you should raise the concept of what is free when it comes to healthcare provision, repiV. Here in the United Kingdom..."

etc. As you can see, Internets not the best medium for debate.

I'm willing to debate the higher philosophical issue a bit here if you like. I would have to start by the following:

Is it possible that sometimes the pursuit of the greater good and the concept of individual liberty can coincide on the same course? For example, to construct an argument from analogy:


The authorities pursue the greater good in having a crime-free society.

This must be done by taking taxes from individuals to pay for Criminal Justice.

However, at the same time it allows individuals a degree of freedom from the fear of crime as well as a degree of freedom from being the actual victim of crime.


If you were to agree yes it is possible to be so, then I would move on to say in this case it is indeed equally possible that the concept of individual liberty and the provision of the greater good tread the same path when it comes to the issue of healthcare provision.

In other words, there is more to individual liberty than money.


That was a bit of a rhetorical Socratic line of debate, but I can't be assd debating deep philosophical stuff on Internets usually. The slowness of it usually makes the whole process uninspiring and unexciting, which sort of defeats the purpose of Socratic dialogue or indeed any form of philosophical conversation.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
3,996
Reaction score
70
Can we please get some facts straight?

This is NOT universal healthcare that the bill is proposing. It is a public insurance OPTION that is available just like private healthcare companies are. The difference being that it is the government. There is not a single mandate forcing people to take the public option if the bill passes.

The town hall meetings have been proven to be organised by republican groups like Freedom Works. They bus the same 50 people all over the country to protest in different districts.

The difference between the organised Democrat response to the protests and the right-wing protests themselves is that the Democrats actually let the congressman/woman speak.
 

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,079
Reaction score
915
Ultimately, taxation is theft. It may be necessary theft, but it is theft nonetheless.
Its not theft. We elect our representatives and give them the power to tax us in order to provide services for us.
 
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
1
And we can take that power away from the government at any time!
Just so long as we don't actually try to...

Would people with down syndrome really benefit from Obama's healthcare reform too?

Fill me in so I can "formulate my own opinions". How does socialized medicine really work if it isn't the death penal for non-productive members of society like Palin says it is?
I'm pretty sure that the people who benefit the most are the ones who are "non-productive". It's not like they can afford medical insurance as it is, is it?
Really, just think about it. Poor people, people who can't support themselves. They can't buy private insurance. If the government provides an option for these people, then suddenly they have a way to survive.

In the UK there are all kinds of disability benefits available from the NHS and the government in general.

As Viper said, this isn't really anything like a national health service anyway. It's just providing an extra option alongside going private.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Ultimately, taxation is theft. It may be necessary theft, but it is theft nonetheless.
Theft? No... it's a price paid for services and operation of the government that makes life in countries as they currently are possible.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
And we can take that power away from the government at any time!
Just so long as we don't actually try to...



I'm pretty sure that the people who benefit the most are the ones who are "non-productive". It's not like they can afford medical insurance as it is, is it?
Really, just think about it. Poor people, people who can't support themselves. They can't buy private insurance. If the government provides an option for these people, then suddenly they have a way to survive.

In the UK there are all kinds of disability benefits available from the NHS and the government in general.

As Viper said, this isn't really anything like a national health service anyway. It's just providing an extra option alongside going private.
Disability benefits have nothing to do with healthcare from a curative point of view. They're not given out by the NHS, they're given out by the Department of Social Security (who also give out unemployment benefits etc). Disability benefits are those given to people unable to work due to disability in lieu of wages.

The NHS doesn't give out benefits. It treats people.
 

Gargantou

Companion Cube
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
9,584
Reaction score
9
Very good video unozero!

Also, I don't see how tax is theft, tax, here in Sweden anyway, goes to pay for healthcare, infrastructure, schools etc, practically everything we use that we don't really pay by ourselves directly.

I don't really see what the point of a government would be without taxes, seeing as they wouldn't really have the financial clout to make any decisions at all.
 

jverne

Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,303
Reaction score
0
i_liek_shootan seems to know what he's talking about. but anyway...socialized *anything* is not really a bad thing as long as corruption is kept to a minimum. like in my country where vast millions of taxpayer money vanish and the perpetrator just goes "it wasn't me", waits a year and everything is forgotten. this is theft.

and besides why are republicans so uptight for something that will be optional and probably only for the ones who are not ensured?
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
Again, you manage to completely miss the point in a truly spectacular fashion. This isn't about whether people get their healthcare paid for or not, it's about the role and power of the state over the individual.
I am aware of why they dont want government involvement in their healthcare. why else would they paint freakin swastikas on placards at these meetings? why the allusion to fascism if that isnt the case? you think this is normal? really you're just going off half cocked as you usually do.


Ironically I think you will find that conservatives give considerably more to charity than liberals do. Of their own free will, not because the state stole their money and redistributed it.
what does this have to do with anything? they give money to people they support moreso than some other group. what a revelation!

Ultimately, taxation is theft. It may be necessary theft, but it is theft nonetheless.
taxation is theft because your tax dollars provide nothing. ....ok, that doesnt sound looney at all

repiv said:
CptStern clearly has no capacity to understand the point of view of anyone else. He just finds these idiots and then stereotypes everyone that opposes him as being one of them.
please point out where I specifically do this. as far as I know we dont have any deathers in our midst. so I'd like to know where you pulled this fact from? most likely your ass, as per usual

repiv said:
He clearly has a value system that values the "greater good" over individual liberty. Other people value individual liberty over the "greater good". Some people disagree with nationalised healthcare because their value system is intrinsically different, and evidently Stern is unable to picture the world from any perspective other than his own.

no in this case it isnt because they have a different value system it's because they are batshit insane. who the **** utters death threats over healthcare reform except extremists and lunatics? no but you would paint them as genteel citizens concerned about unfair treatment at the hands of big brother government. you softball their motivations because it suits your idiotic agenda, one that's not even remotely connected to the issue at hand: percieved heavy handed socialism in your very own backyard. you use every single thread you post in to piush your agenda. well **** off and start your own thread about your concerns, leave the rest of to post on the topic at hand without you constantly jumping and framing it as an issue of big brother government meddling with individual freedoms. every. ****ing. time
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I agree, of course it does. I didn't have an opinion on your original post to be honest, I was just using it to put across a UK viewpoint as to differing interpretations of what the word "free" can mean when it comes to healthcare provision.

For example, if we were debating face to face, I would probably use the stock phrase:

"It's interesting you should raise the concept of what is free when it comes to healthcare provision, repiV. Here in the United Kingdom..."

etc. As you can see, Internets not the best medium for debate.
As you can see, I'm English so I am quite well versed in the UK viewpoint...

I'm willing to debate the higher philosophical issue a bit here if you like. I would have to start by the following:

Is it possible that sometimes the pursuit of the greater good and the concept of individual liberty can coincide on the same course? For example, to construct an argument from analogy:


The authorities pursue the greater good in having a crime-free society.

This must be done by taking taxes from individuals to pay for Criminal Justice.

However, at the same time it allows individuals a degree of freedom from the fear of crime as well as a degree of freedom from being the actual victim of crime.
That's different. Taxation is the government imposing its will on you by force with no legitimate escape route. You have the liberty to defend yourself against crime. It's a battle, not an imposition.

If you were to agree yes it is possible to be so, then I would move on to say in this case it is indeed equally possible that the concept of individual liberty and the provision of the greater good tread the same path when it comes to the issue of healthcare provision.

In other words, there is more to individual liberty than money.
It's not about the amount of money in the bank, it's about people having control over their own money.

Its not theft. We elect our representatives and give them the power to tax us in order to provide services for us.
Sorry, I don't recall ever having a choice in whether or not I pay tax. Taking without consent. It's theft, pure and simple.

Theft? No... it's a price paid for services and operation of the government that makes life in countries as they currently are possible.
If a man steals from his neighbour to feed his neighbourhood, he's still a thief.

Also, I don't see how tax is theft, tax, here in Sweden anyway, goes to pay for healthcare, infrastructure, schools etc, practically everything we use that we don't really pay by ourselves directly.
Tax also goes to pay for all sorts of other things you will never use, and in many cases is also used against us. The British government is the biggest spender on advertising in the UK. So let's get this straight - I have money I've earned forcibly taken from me, in order that they can then use it in order to tell me how I should be living my life? WTF?

Modern-day taxation is also used as a form of social engineering, by penalising people for certain behaviours and rewarding them for others. Which is nothing short of outrageous.

I don't really see what the point of a government would be without taxes, seeing as they wouldn't really have the financial clout to make any decisions at all.
That's true. The point is that governments should treat taxation with a lot more respect than they do currently. It's a necessary evil, and should only be used for necessary purposes. Moreover, they should have a responsibility to spend our money as wisely as possible and to keep the tax burden as low as possible.

Currently governments see taxation as their divine right, treat the money with no respect and waste it in ways that would be unimaginable if it were their own money. Such as putting utterly unemployable morons in vastly over-rewarded public sector jobs with meaningless job descriptions. So then, it's nothing more than theft. At least if they respect the gravity of the responsibility it's a theft that we can excuse.

I am aware of why they dont want government involvement in their healthcare. why else would they paint freakin swastikas on placards at these meetings? why the allusion to fascism if that isnt the case? really you're just going off half cocked as you usually do.
So everyone who doesn't want government involvement in their healthcare paints swastikas on placards?


what does this have to do with anything? they give money to people they support moreso than some other group. what a revelation!
What on earth are you talking about?

taxation is theft because your tax dollars provide nothing. ....ok, that doesnt sound looney at all
Taxation is theft because it's taking without consent, simple as. Notwithstanding the fact that untold billions are wasted, unaccounted for, or downright used against me.

please point out where I specifically do this. as far as I know we dont have any deathers in our midst. so I'd like to know where you pulled this fact from? most likely your ass, as per usual
You're doing it right now FFS. If you don't understand at this point just how moronic your argument is, and you fail to grasp that I'm not defending extremist lunatics but actually pointing out that not everyone who disagrees with you IS an extremist lunatic, then perhaps you must be an extremist lunatic of the other variety yourself.

no in this case it isnt because they have a different value system it's because they are batshit insane. who the **** utters death threats over healthcare reform except extremists and lunatics? no but you would paint them as genteel citizens concerned about unfair treatment at the hands of big brother government. you softball their motivations because it suits your idiotic agenda, one that's not even remotely connected to the issue at hand: percieved heavy handed socialism in your very own backyard.
So everyone who opposes healthcare reforms makes death threats?

you use every single thread you post in to piush your agenda. well **** off and start your own thread about your concerns, leave the rest of to post on the topic at hand without you constantly jumping and framing it as an issue of big brother government meddling with individual freedoms. every. ****ing. time
So now who's the lunatic? You sound genuinely insane.

The greatest irony of all here is that I think healthcare reform in the US is a good thing. I don't, however, appreciate the arguments being put forth here which sound like the insane rantings of raving lunatics. You're prejudiced, blinkered, and being right by coincidence is very much worse then being wrong by rational thought.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
What on earth are you talking about?
Y'know how you always say conservatives like US republicans give more to charity? Many Churches are registered charities. Hell, the Catholic church my parent goes to is an individual charity and it's pretty small.
My point being them giving to charity isn't necessarily what one might assume it is - cancer research or drugs recovery programmes etc. which would otherwise be funded by government taxes without breaking seperation of Church and State.
I'd like to see a breakdown of these reported donations before I believe that they're such well-intentioned philanthropists.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
Sorry, I don't recall ever having a choice in whether or not I pay tax. Taking without consent. It's theft, pure and simple.



If a man steals from his neighbour to feed his neighbourhood, he's still a thief.
Sorry, but pretty much every country taxes their citizens as an essential means of maintaining their civilization. It goes towards productive things that benefit you, whether you realize it or not. Some of it is wasteful, sometimes a lot.

If you don't like it, you can feel free to move away from everything that civilization touches and live like a hermit off the grid that is maintained by taxes.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Y'know how you always say conservatives like US republicans give more to charity? Many Churches are registered charities. Hell, the Catholic church my parent goes to is an individual charity and it's pretty small.
My point being them giving to charity isn't necessarily what one might assume it is - cancer research or drugs recovery programmes etc. which would otherwise be funded by government taxes without breaking seperation of Church and State.
I'd like to see a breakdown of these reported donations before I believe that they're such well-intentioned philanthropists.
I don't know where you would find these figures in such detail, or how it would be possible to collect such information reliably.

I take your point, however my take on the situation is that, generally speaking, conservatives (small "c", not necessarily in the American sense) believe that it is their responsibility to do the right thing and help others, whereas liberals think that it's the state's responsibility.

It being, of course, a convinient myth that people with right-wing beliefs are all bastards. Personally I find that most people far over to the left are the most selfish people of all, and are more interested in playing the great crusader and "stickin' it to the man" than actually doing any good. See: Harriet Harman.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Sorry, but pretty much every country taxes their citizens as an essential means of maintaining their civilization. It goes towards productive things that benefit you, whether you realize it or not. Some of it is wasteful, sometimes a lot.

If you don't like it, you can feel free to move away from everything that civilization touches and live like a hermit off the grid that is maintained by taxes.
That's not the point, is it?

Yes, tax is the status quo. Yes, tax is necessary to support the kind of society that most of us want to continue living in.

But it's still theft. People would do well to remember this, if the topic of tax was treated with the level of gravity that it deserves, we wouldn't get so screwed over.

Crime can be necessary, forgivable or even acceptable, it all depends on the circumstances. If we are taxed only what is necessary and not used as a cash cow, then perhaps nobody would mind being taxed.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
So everyone who doesn't want government involvement in their healthcare paints swastikas on placards?
yes that's exactly what I'm saying :upstare: this is why I hate getting into any discussion with you; you're an alarmist ninny who has to frame everything in your own terms. so to you someone painting a swastika on a placard is the exact same say thing as saying EVERYONE is painting swastikas on placards. you do this on purpose to avoid confronting anything you disagree with. your methods are completely transparent




What on earth are you talking about?
I can say the same about you; what on earth does conservatives giving more to charity than liberals have to do with anything? why bother pointing that out? it's as if you're saying "liberals wouldnt do that" ..well what does that have to do with anything?



Taxation is theft because it's taking without consent, simple as.
you really are a lunatic. chock that up to the fact you're not agreeing with me but sometimes what you say makes you sound like a lunatic. systemic government sponsored theft while getting nothing in return for thousands of years. yet people still PAY their taxes. :rolling:


Notwithstanding the fact that untold billions are wasted, unaccounted for, or downright used against me.
and this somehow proves taxation is theft? huge bureaucracies waste money needlessly. OMG WHAT A REVELATION!!!



You're doing it right now FFS. If you don't understand at this point just how moronic your argument is, and you fail to grasp that I'm not defending extremist lunatics but actually pointing out that not everyone who disagrees with you IS an extremist lunatic, then perhaps you must be an extremist lunatic of the other variety yourself.
only because you frame it that way. the "extremist lunatics" are the ones sending death threats and spray painting swastikas on congressmen's signs. but you would frame it to mean EVERYONE because it suits your agenda



So everyone who opposes healthcare reforms makes death threats?
yes this is exactly what I'm saying EVERYONE :upstare: you frame everything as black or white.



So now who's the lunatic? You sound genuinely insane.
let me guess. it's because I dont agree with you, right?

The greatest irony of all here is that I think healthcare reform in the US is a good thing. I don't, however, appreciate the arguments being put forth here which sound like the insane rantings of raving lunatics.
I posted the ranting of lunatics yet you somehow flip flop it to mean that Im the lunatic for posting their lunacy. right that makes a ton of sense

You're prejudiced, blinkered, and being right by coincidence is very much worse then being wrong by rational thought.
I call a spade a spade. you'd explain it away as people with legitimate concerns while ignoring the fact that these people (the people listed specifically in this thread) are raving extremists who utter death threats and allude to nazism just because they're at odds with heathcare reform. if you dont recognise this is irrational people acting irrationally then I'd have to question your own rationality.
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
I don't know where you would find these figures in such detail, or how it would be possible to collect such information reliably.

I take your point, however my take on the situation is that, generally speaking, conservatives (small "c", not necessarily in the American sense) believe that it is their responsibility to do the right thing and help others, whereas liberals think that it's the state's responsibility.
I assumed whatever source you originally had for 'conservatives donate more to charity' had more depth to it than the headline.
As a proviso for conservatives thinking they should 'do the right thing' - their opinion of right is often different from what liberals believe too. In addition to the obvious faith-based comparisons I wonder how many conservatives would donate to, say stem cell research vs liberals being fine with government funding of such work? How many would be leery of donating to help STI sufferers?

Also I believe (and I suppose it's a general 'liberal' belief) that it is more effective for the government to control funding of such programmes rather than individuals. The government can afford to employ panels and advisors as to which areas would be best to invest in, whereas with the public it's often a case of "Aw think of Jade Goody's kids, let's give money to cervical cancer research" or "We need to cure Alzheimer's, think of Pratchett!" rather than make informed decisions.
That's not the point, is it?

Yes, tax is the status quo. Yes, tax is necessary to support the kind of society that most of us want to continue living in.

But it's still theft. People would do well to remember this, if the topic of tax was treated with the level of gravity that it deserves, we wouldn't get so screwed over.

Crime can be necessary, forgivable or even acceptable, it all depends on the circumstances. If we are taxed only what is necessary and not used as a cash cow, then perhaps nobody would mind being taxed.
It might seem like theft, but I don't believe it is legally speaking, which means it isn't a crime either.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
yes that's exactly what I'm saying :upstare: this is why I hate getting into any discussion with you; you're an alarmist ninny who has to frame everything in your own terms. so to you someone painting a swastika on a placard is the exact same say thing as saying EVERYONE is painting swastikas on placards. you do this on purpose to avoid confronting anything you disagree with. your methods are completely transparent
Right. So why did you accuse me of defending people who paint swastikas on placards when I clearly did nothing of the sort?

I can say the same about you; what on earth does conservatives giving more to charity than liberals have to do with anything? why bother pointing that out? it's as if you're saying "liberals wouldnt do that" ..well what does that have to do with anything?
A lot. You seem to believe that everyone right-of-centre doesn't give a shit about anyone else. If anything, I'd say it's more often the other way around.

you really are a lunatic. chock that up to the fact you're not agreeing with me but sometimes what you say makes you sound like a lunatic. systemic government sponsored theft while getting nothing in return for thousands of years. yet people still PAY their taxes. :rolling:
Where did I say anything about "getting nothing in return for thousands of years"? It's taking without consent, so it's theft. That's all there is to it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

and this somehow proves taxation is theft? huge bureaucracies waste money needlessly. OMG WHAT A REVELATION!!!
No, it's an additional comment on the subject of tax.

only because you frame it that way. the "extremist lunatics" are the ones sending death threats and spray painting swastikas on congressmen's signs. but you would frame it to mean EVERYONE because it suits your agenda
You've made numerous comments here to the effect that anyone who opposes healthcare reform is insane or an idiot. You automatically jumped to the conclusion that I was defending the extremist lunatics you speak of.

Yes, I'd say that means your thinking is pretty stereotypical.

yes this is exactly what I'm saying EVERYONE :upstare: you frame everything as black or white.
No. You do.

let me guess. it's because I dont agree with you, right?
Where the **** did you get the idea that I'm painting the nutters you speak of as "genteel citizens"?

Maybe it's because you're stupid, maybe it's because you have deep-seated prejudices, or maybe it's because your grasp of the English language isn't as good as it could be, but by god, for one reason or another, you make absolutely no sense and always, ALWAYS miss the point every time you reply.

I posted the ranting of lunatics yet you somehow flip flop it to mean that Im the lunatic for posting their lunacy. right that makes a ton of sense
I'm not flip flopping it. They are lunatics. You're also being a lunatic. You're stereotyping everyone opposing your viewpoint as being one of those lunatics.

I call a spade a spade. you'd explain it away as people with legitimate concerns while ignoring the fact that these people (the people listed specifically in this thread) are raving extremists who utter death threats and allude to nazism just because they're at odds with heathcare reform. if you dont recognise this is irrational people acting irrationally then I'd have to question your own rationality.
I haven't even addressed the subject of these specific people until now, because as far as I'm concerned it's not really relevant. You're being irrational, and that's the point. Your examples of crazy extremist are really neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I assumed whatever source you originally had for 'conservatives donate more to charity' had more depth to it than the headline.
There has been research to that effect, but not to my knowledge that's ever identified the eventual receipient of those donations in any worthwhile detail.

As a proviso for conservatives thinking they should 'do the right thing' - their opinion of right is often different from what liberals believe too. In addition to the obvious faith-based comparisons I wonder how many conservatives would donate to, say stem cell research vs liberals being fine with government funding of such work? How many would be leery of donating to help STI sufferers?
I don't think it would make any difference in this country on funding stem cell research, as I don't see that conservatives are any more likely to be religious than liberals. That's a uniquely American thing.

Also I believe that it is more effective for the government to control funding of such programmes rather than individuals. The government can afford to employ panels and advisors as to which areas would be best to invest in, whereas with the public it's often a case of "Aw think of Jade Goody's kids, let's give money to cervical cancer research" or "We need to cure Alzheimer's, think of Pratchett!" rather than make informed decisions.
You might be right. All I'm saying is that just because people don't think the government should be giving money to this, that and the other, doesn't mean they are not generous and caring people. Often, the opposite is true.

It might seem like theft, but I don't believe it is legally speaking, which means it isn't a crime either.
A fair point, but then when the same organisation a) collects tax and b) makes the law, doesn't that make the law regarding the legality of tax somewhat redundant? It's no different to if you were the supreme overlord and decided to make it legal for you to collect "royalties". It would still be theft in all but name.

I don't see that the letter of the law has any real bearing on right or wrong, it's the same principle and should be seen as such.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
Right. So why did you accuse me of defending people who paint swastikas on placards when I clearly did nothing of the sort?
I said you softballed their reaction to healthcare reform.



care to elaborate?

You seem to believe that everyone right-of-centre doesn't give a shit about anyone else. If anything, I'd say it's more often the other way around.
so we're at an impasse because we're both giving opinions. except I never said anything even remotely associated with conservatives not giving a shit aobut anyone else. this thread proves it's not true: they obviously ponyed up the money for his healthcare ...so,yet again you prove you twist words to mean something I never intended



Where did I say anything about "getting nothing in return for thousands of years"?
I am saying it. you make it sound like robber barons robbing people of their hard earned money and then giving nothing in return; you frame it in such a way as to support your agenda, regardless if there's any merit to it or not

It's taking without consent, so it's theft. That's all there is to it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

no, theft is defined as taking something illegally without consent. a repo man is not arrested because he didnt ask for consent. this is ludicrous to even suggest they're the same thing. if you feel so strongly about why would you allow your money to be stolen right in front of your face? why not do as raziaar suggests and detach yourself from the grid? either you dont care tha much about people stealing your money or your analogy doesnt hold water



repiv said:
No, it's an additional comment on the subject of tax.
framed in such a way as to bring into the conversation your issue with big brother government. again, completely transparent



repiv said:
You've made numerous comments here to the effect that anyone who opposes healthcare reform is insane or an idiot.
nope. I said anyone who opposes universal healthcare is insane or can afford coverage above what universal healthcare can provide. it doesnt make sense that people would like to pay out of their own pockets for something that would be paid by the state

repiv said:
You automatically jumped to the conclusion that I was defending the extremist lunatics you speak of.
no, I said you softballed their reaction. you completely ignored everything that was posted in this thread that originated from the lunatic fringe.

Yes, I'd say that means your thinking is pretty stereotypical.



repiv said:
No. You do.
no, you



repiv said:
Where the **** did you get the idea that I'm painting the nutters you speak of as "genteel citizens"?
because you say that not all lunatics are lunatics:

"So everyone who doesn't want government involvement in their healthcare paints swastikas on placards?"

you frame it in shades of black and white. so why cant I? if these people are not lunatics then the opposite must be true. you might as well have implied it

repiv said:
Maybe it's because you're stupid, maybe it's because you have deep-seated prejudices, or maybe it's because your grasp of the English language isn't as good as it could be, but by god, for one reason or another, you make absolutely no sense and always, ALWAYS miss the point every time you reply.
resorting to personal insults? at least I giving you my opinion. you're making a statement of fact: I'm stupid, I'm prejudiced and I cant speak english. lets look at the fact shall wee: you're fat, you're unattractive and you have zero personality. shall we resort to giving opinions or just facts? would this further our interaction or would it be a detriment to having any sort of meaningfull conversation. as far as I'm concerned you went too far, and as a result I will forgo any respect I might have had for you previously.


repiv said:
I'm not flip flopping it. They are lunatics. You're also being a lunatic. You're stereotyping everyone opposing your viewpoint as being one of those lunatics.
for the last ****ing time. I am not. YOU are putting words in mouth



repiv said:
I haven't even addressed the subject of these specific people until now, because as far as I'm concerned it's not really relevant.
the thread is about extremists making death threats at townhall meetings ..yet it's irrelevent to the topic. you must think your shit smells of roses

repiv said:
You're being irrational, and that's the point. Your examples of crazy extremist are really neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.
wtf are you talking about? the thread is about townhall meetings. I've posted on that very subject. why wouldnt it have any bearing on what we're discussing? you really are full of yourself. without due cause I might add
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I said you softballed their reaction to healthcare reform.
I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about you. You provided examples of some lunatics which, at the end of the day, are just examples. I might pay more attention to your examples except that all of your threads are exactly the same. "Look at this crazy American/conservative/Christian".

After a while, the message that comes across is that you're obsessed with crazy people of these demographics and that's the extent of your contribution on the subject. So you might forgive me for thinking that a) you think all right-wing people are insane, stupid or both, b) you cannot understand the world from other points of view, c) your political threads aren't worth taking seriously.

Personally I find your level of interest in overseas domestic politics slightly disturbing.

care to elaborate?
I did...

so we're at an impasse because we're both giving opinions. except I never said anything even remotely associated with conservatives not giving a shit aobut anyone else. this thread proves it's not true: they obviously ponyed up the money for his healthcare ...so,yet again you prove you twist words to mean something I never intended
Fair point. However, you also said that makes them hypocrites - which it doesn't, and other people have already pointed out why that is.

You certainly give the impression that you think conservatives don't give a shit about anyone else, as all your threads are about them and how supposedly evil and stupid they are.

I am saying it. you make it sound like robber barons robbing people of their hard earned money and then giving nothing in return; you frame it in such a way as to support your agenda, regardless if there's any merit to it or not
What could my agenda possibly be, when I agree with you on socialised health care? I don't like to see people making stupid arguments, end of. I've ripped it out of Nemesis plenty of times before, despite agreeing with him in principle. Selective memory?

no, theft is defined as taking something illegally without consent. a repo man is not arrested because he didnt ask for consent. this is ludicrous to even suggest they're the same thing. if you feel so strongly about why would you allow your money to be stolen right in front of your face? why not do as raziaar suggests and detach yourself from the grid? either you dont care tha much about people stealing your money or your analogy doesnt hold water
Like I said, it's a necessary evil. Levying a new tax should be a bit like going to war, you don't do it on a whim - and then it should be periodically reviewed and stopped once its served its purpose. As opposed to the situation we have now, where the state just grows and grows and grows and gros.

From an idealistic point of view, I think that tax - like war - is wrong. In reality we need both and both should be treated with the care and respect they warrant.

framed in such a way as to bring into the conversation your issue with big brother government. again, completely transparent
Nationalised healthcare is part and parcel of big brother government. The NHS is the world's third largest employer, if that isn't a super-sized state then I don't know what is.

Opposition to it isn't about wanting people to suffer, it's about small government. At the end of the day, most (but by no means all) of the people who end up in the shit because of health insurance issues have only themselves to blame. From that perspective, it's easy to see why sympathy is not so forthcoming in some instances.

On the other hand, you don't **** around with people's wellbeing. And I fully appreciate the problems of the current situation, given that I would be unable to get health insurance in the US and equally unable to afford my medication.

It's when people suggest that the wealthy should not be allowed to buy the best treatment that they can afford, over and above that offered by the state, that I think "wtf?". As there are plenty of people in this country who think private schooling should be banned because it's unfair. Why do you never tell us about these extremist lunatics?

nope. I said anyone who opposes universal healthcare is insane or can afford coverage above what universal healthcare can provide. it doesnt make sense that people would like to pay out of their own pockets for something that would be paid by the state
But they are paying out of their own pockets, one way or another. Anyone with money and in good health is going to be paying far more with nationalised healthcare. It wouldn't surprise me if a small percentage of the population take up the vast majority of healthcare resources.

The argument being, why should they subsidise everyone else?

no, I said you softballed their reaction. you completely ignored everything that was posted in this thread that originated from the lunatic fringe.
I know I did. You post so much of it that it goes in one ear and out the other by now.

because you say that not all lunatics are lunatics:

"So everyone who doesn't want government involvement in their healthcare paints swastikas on placards?"

you frame it in shades of black and white. so why cant I? if these people are not lunatics then the opposite must be true. you might as well have implied it
Not everyone who doesn't want government involement in their healthcare is a lunatic. In fact the lunatics are something of a minority. Reading your posts would suggest anything but.

resorting to personal insults? at least I giving you my opinion. you're making a statement of fact: I'm stupid, I'm prejudiced and I cant speak english. lets look at the fact shall wee: you're fat, you're unattractive and you have zero personality. shall we resort to giving opinions or just facts? would this further our interaction or would it be a detriment to having any sort of meaningfull conversation. as far as I'm concerned you went too far, and as a result I will forgo any respect I might have had for you previously.
I said "maybe". I genuinely can't understand your lack of ability to grasp what I am saying. Our discussions are never meaningful because you don't really engage on the subject in the first place, so I don't see what difference the odd insult is going to make. Although, you're doing a lot better in this post.

the thread is about extremists making death threats at townhall meetings ..yet it's irrelevent to the topic. you must think your shit smells of roses

wtf are you talking about? the thread is about townhall meetings. I've posted on that very subject. why wouldnt it have any bearing on what we're discussing? you really are full of yourself. without due cause I might add
The extremists are largely irrelevant to the bigger picture. But that's all you ever focus on.
 

Rico

Tank
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
4
As you can see, I'm English so I am quite well versed in the UK viewpoint...



That's different. Taxation is the government imposing its will on you by force with no legitimate escape route. You have the liberty to defend yourself against crime. It's a battle, not an imposition.



It's not about the amount of money in the bank, it's about people having control over their own money.



Sorry, I don't recall ever having a choice in whether or not I pay tax. Taking without consent. It's theft, pure and simple.



If a man steals from his neighbour to feed his neighbourhood, he's still a thief.



Tax also goes to pay for all sorts of other things you will never use, and in many cases is also used against us. The British government is the biggest spender on advertising in the UK. So let's get this straight - I have money I've earned forcibly taken from me, in order that they can then use it in order to tell me how I should be living my life? WTF?

Modern-day taxation is also used as a form of social engineering, by penalising people for certain behaviours and rewarding them for others. Which is nothing short of outrageous.



That's true. The point is that governments should treat taxation with a lot more respect than they do currently. It's a necessary evil, and should only be used for necessary purposes. Moreover, they should have a responsibility to spend our money as wisely as possible and to keep the tax burden as low as possible.

Currently governments see taxation as their divine right, treat the money with no respect and waste it in ways that would be unimaginable if it were their own money. Such as putting utterly unemployable morons in vastly over-rewarded public sector jobs with meaningless job descriptions. So then, it's nothing more than theft. At least if they respect the gravity of the responsibility it's a theft that we can excuse.



So everyone who doesn't want government involvement in their healthcare paints swastikas on placards?




What on earth are you talking about?



Taxation is theft because it's taking without consent, simple as. Notwithstanding the fact that untold billions are wasted, unaccounted for, or downright used against me.



You're doing it right now FFS. If you don't understand at this point just how moronic your argument is, and you fail to grasp that I'm not defending extremist lunatics but actually pointing out that not everyone who disagrees with you IS an extremist lunatic, then perhaps you must be an extremist lunatic of the other variety yourself.



So everyone who opposes healthcare reforms makes death threats?



So now who's the lunatic? You sound genuinely insane.

The greatest irony of all here is that I think healthcare reform in the US is a good thing. I don't, however, appreciate the arguments being put forth here which sound like the insane rantings of raving lunatics. You're prejudiced, blinkered, and being right by coincidence is very much worse then being wrong by rational thought.
GTFO the taxpayer's roads then, and move to an isolated island with no government somewhere. By choosing to live where you do, you consent to the rules of the land. Don't like it? GTFO.

Easy solution to your "big brother is stealing from me" problem.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
GTFO the taxpayer's roads then, and move to an isolated island with no government somewhere. By choosing to live where you do, you consent to the rules of the land. Don't like it? GTFO.

Easy solution to your "big brother is stealing from me" problem.
Fallacious argument, as this country belongs as much to me as it does to any government minister. Nor is withdrawing that consent a realistic option. For that matter, I never chose to live here either. I was born here.

Why did you move to the US of all places if you dismiss the ownership of the people over their government?
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about you. You provided examples of some lunatics which, at the end of the day, are just examples. I might pay more attention to your examples except that all of your threads are exactly the same. "Look at this crazy American/conservative/Christian".
the thread is about the craziness at townhall meetings. what the hell did you expect me to post about? something completely unrelated?

After a while, the message that comes across is that you're obsessed with crazy people of these demographics
full stop. yes I like crazy people, because they're entertaining. because they also happen to be conservative (who knew crazy politics and religious issues would be filled by so many conservatives?)

and that's the extent of your contribution on the subject.
I gave examples of their lunacy. again what did you expect me to post in a thread about the crazies at townhall meetings? you didnt even bother to remain on topic. instead you went into your usual diatribe about big brother yadda yadda and ignored the topic at hand. you were trolling

So you might forgive me for thinking that a) you think all right-wing people are insane, stupid or both,
you got one thing right: it's you who thinks that way, not me


b) you cannot understand the world from other points of view,
again that's your opinion. doesnt make it true. and I'm sorry if I wont accept the pov of lunatics. the simple fact that they have an opiinion doesnt in any way shape or form automatically validate their opinion

c) your political threads aren't worth taking seriously.
I'm upset that some random guy who identifies with much of what I'm against doesnt take my threads seriously. oh dear god what am I to do?

Personally I find your level of interest in overseas domestic politics slightly disturbing.
the US and canada are joined by land. the US is not "overseas" geography ftl



where?



Fair point. However, you also said that makes them hypocrites - which it doesn't, and other people have already pointed out why that is.
no I didnt:

Cptstern said:
and I'm sure there's tons of conservatives willing to pay for his medical expenses. call it social assistance, call it a handout, call it being a ****in hypocrite
I said you/he/they/anyone and everyone in particular can call them hypocrites. see how you twist my words?

repiv said:
You certainly give the impression that you think conservatives don't give a shit about anyone else

repiv said:
, as all your threads are about them and how supposedly evil and stupid they are.
because in those threads are about evil and stupid conservatives. not conservatives in general; just the evil and stupid ones. should I have posted a disclaimer?



repiv said:
What could my agenda possibly be, when I agree with you on socialised health care?
o_O when have we ever agreed on socialised healthcare. if I remember correctly you were lamenting the fact that a private system would serve you better. that's not agreeing

repiv said:
I don't like to see people making stupid arguments
yet ignore all the stupid arguments conservatives have at these townhall meetings. you selective choose when you do this

repiv said:
I've ripped it out of Nemesis plenty of times before, despite agreeing with him in principle. Selective memory?
and what does that prove? most of the things nemesis said were stupid. so agreeing that they're stupid means nothing because it's self evident; they are stupid



repiv said:
Like I said, it's a necessary evil. Levying a new tax should be a bit like going to war, you don't do it on a whim - and then it should be periodically reviewed and stopped once its served its purpose. As opposed to the situation we have now, where the state just grows and grows and grows and gros.
along with the population, along with society, along with the world around them. they had no need to make legislation against targeted spamming or illegally downloading copyrighted material. etc because it didnt exist yearts ago. no matter what you do government will always expand, even if it's just numbers; to better serve the people

repiv said:
From an idealistic point of view, I think that tax - like war - is wrong. In reality we need both and both should be treated with the care and respect they warrant.
you called taxation theft. how can you respect something you deem to be theft?



repiv said:
Nationalised healthcare is part and parcel of big brother government.

how?

repiv said:
The NHS is the world's third largest employer, if that isn't a super-sized state then I don't know what is.
yes thoise healthcare workers are elected officials who write legislation. come on, even for you that's an extreme stretch of the imagination. perhaps it would be better run by a privately run, for profit system. hell so long as there arent as many bureaucrats i lab coats writing legilation who cares if a good chunk of the population isnt served. too bad they should get proper jerbs

repiv said:
Opposition to it isn't about wanting people to suffer, it's about small government.
and antional healthcare system would mean ...bg government? are the doctors in your neck of the woods elected because our doctors only involvement with the government is when they cash in their bloody cheques

repiv said:
At the end of the day, most (but by no means all) of the people who end up in the shit because of health insurance issues have only themselves to blame.
you really are out to lunch. healthcare is the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the US. inability to pay bills is the number one reason because they have ZERO insurance. a US friend of mine who's a freakin lawyer and works at a prestigious lawfirms pays on average $15,000 out of pocket costs every year for himself, his wife and two kids, and he has what he says is "above average healthcare plan". how the hell would someone living on 30K a year pay that?the average household in the US makes just over $50k, factor in the cost of living, rent food etc and there's not that much left over. certainly not $14k

repiv said:
From that perspective, it's easy to see why sympathy is not so forthcoming in some instances.
again because you framed it that way.

repiv said:
On the other hand, you don't **** around with people's wellbeing. And I fully appreciate the problems of the current situation, given that I would be unable to get health insurance in the US and equally unable to afford my medication.
you'd be joining the ranks of 45 million americans who are in the same boat. 45 million that's bigger than the population of canada

repiv said:
It's when people suggest that the wealthy should not be allowed to buy the best treatment that they can afford, over and above that offered by the state, that I think "wtf?".
again only because you frame it that way. nothing stops anyone from going to a country that has paid clinics. however dont expect socialised healthcare to provide two tiers based on what people earn. this is contrary to the entire idea behind socialised medicine. if you have the money you'll get to pick and choose what services you get. and I disagree that more money = better service. the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any country in the world yet their results are below most first world countries. something is clearly wrong here

repiv said:
As there are plenty of people in this country who think private schooling should be banned because it's unfair. Why do you never tell us about these extremist lunatics?
first I hear of it. seeing as how it's your neck of the woods, why havent you called them lunatics?



repiv said:
But they are paying out of their own pockets, one way or another.
excatly my point; either way they'd be paying out their pockets.

repiv said:
Anyone with money and in good health is going to be paying far more with nationalised healthcare.
this is alarmist; where do you think money for nnationaised healthcare comes from? tax payer money. so if you make a lot of money your personal share of income tax will be higher than someone who works minimum wage. I sound like a broken record but is this really a revelation? you frame it much like the conservatives do: "you're going to have to pay more money if you're rich!!!" well, no shit sherlock

repiv said:
It wouldn't surprise me if a small percentage of the population take up the vast majority of healthcare resources.
yes, they're called "sick people" :O

repiv said:
The argument being, why should they subsidise everyone else?
yet they have no problem when they're the ones being susidized. look even the weathiest people cannot afford medical treatment. my dad was in ICU for over 2 weeks. total costs incduing a brain operation and being hooked to all kinds of machines that go beep beep beep would have cost well over 3 million dollars. who the **** can afford that? maybe 100-200 in th eworld tops



repiv said:
I know I did. You post so much of it that it goes in one ear and out the other by now.
so you admit to trolling. because that was what the topic is about; extremist lunatics



repiv said:
Not everyone who doesn't want government involement in their healthcare is a lunatic.
:upstare: oh here we go again ...I can say it till I'm blue in the face and you still wont accept it


repiv said:
In fact the lunatics are something of a minority. Reading your posts would suggest anything but.
no, I'm pretty sure the lunatics who were protesting at the townhall meetings were the majority not minority. again this thrwad is about them, not me



repiv said:
I said "maybe".
lol you really do think I'm stupid because that's NOT what you said:

Maybe it's because you're stupid, maybe it's because you have deep-seated prejudices, or maybe it's because your grasp of the English language isn't as good as it could be
you're saying that it's fact. the "maybe" is in relation to not understanding what you said, but the stupid, the prejudice, the poor grasp of english you stated as fact

repiv said:
I genuinely can't understand your lack of ability to grasp what I am saying.
again you think too highly of yourself. like I said earlier you're transparent and I have no problem understanding your meaning. HOWEVER since I constantly saying that you've twisted my words or that you've made my statement into a black and white issue then it MUST mean that you're the one who's not understanding what I'm saying ...Maybe it's because you're stupid ....


see how how maybe doesnt make a diference?


repiv said:
Our discussions are never meaningful because you don't really engage on the subject in the first place,
because you constantly change the subject or frame it in such a way that it's off topic. I have no problems discussing things with other members

repiv said:
so I don't see what difference the odd insult is going to make.
you're reasoning is that since you think I dont actually discuss the topic at hand it's ok to call me stupid or prejudiced etc ...you're really gonna stick by that reasoning? really?





repiv said:
The extremists are largely irrelevant to the bigger picture. But that's all you ever focus on.

for the love of all that's holy goddam shit mother****er TITTY!!! this thread is about extremists!!!!
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
Are you guys actually talking about healthcare anymore? I have to trust you to tell me the truth rather than looking myself because your posts are inpenetrable as well as unpalatable.
 

Vegeta897

Banned as all ****
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
26,150
Reaction score
468
I think they're playing a text based adventure game.
 

Apocalypse89

Newbie
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
0
This thread is a perfect example of why I try to avoid political discussions on the internet.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
you should avoid them IRL as well because that's exactly what they're like. walls of text. WALLS
 

staticprimer

Newbie
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
0
Anyone notice that in his last big post, stern started arguing with himself?
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
where? :naughty:


I cant believe how long that reply was. jebus, that really was a wall of text.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
127
Reaction score
0
As you can see, I'm English so I am quite well versed in the UK viewpoint...
Hmm, the sanctinmonious type huh? Well, I did try to be civil. Sarcasm generally only works against people with low levels of intelligence.

For a moment there I thought we were going to have an intellectually stimulating debate on whether the concept of individual liberty and the pursuit of the common good can be coterminous. Perhaps even the economic foundations for private healthcare. But no, you had to come up with a simplistic non-sequitur didn't you. Yawn.


I don't much want to walk around in my daily life ready for battle. Perhaps you do. Perhaps that's why people consider you strange. Perhaps you just played too much BG2 as a kid. Who knows?
 
Top