If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[BenW]

Just trying to specify.

If you don't like a little verbal sparring, then perhaps you should stick to the PAX threads bud.

Pff, censorship of debate is for weenyasses.
I just would have enjoyed a more substantial reply, is all.

Despite what you may think, I like you, Satya.
You're intelligent, and debating with you has consistently been a worthwhile challenge.

 

[Satya]

Pff, censorship of debate is for weenyasses.
I just would have enjoyed a more substantial reply, is all.

Despite what you may think, I like you, Satya.
You're intelligent, and debating with you has consistently been a worthwhile challenge.

Ah, that is one of the nicest things anyone has said to me in weeks. Thank you.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

Given that you "work a job that is purely manual labor and [are] not paid well," you'd benefit more from the Democrat plan than the inchoate Republican plan. Your Canadian girlfriend, OTOH, has much better, cheaper healthcare coverage than you'll ever get here unless you become more successful economically. I personally don't really care because I can afford the absolute best in healthcare. But, I'm always amazed at the "tea party" types who vote against their own best interests (for which I would, undoubtedly, pay much more in taxes). They've really been taken in. What morons.

My Canadian girlfriend also pays 15% sales tax (even tax on food) plus income taxes...and please forgive me for not considering myself a charity case. I don't think it would be possible for you to come off as any more condescending. "Poor little guy, having to live an average life. Maybe we can put it up in a zoo and the kids can feed it." Want to talk about moronic.

I'll be getting off for a bit. Need to clean my average place to prepare for my Canadian girlfriend.

 

[Satya]

My Canadian girlfriend also pays 15% sales tax (even tax on food) plus income taxes...and please forgive me for not considering myself a charity case. I don't think it would be possible for you to come off as any more condescending. "Poor little guy, having to live an average life. Maybe we can put it up in a zoo and the kids can feed it." Want to talk about moronic.

So it comes down to money.

Big surprise.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

So it comes down to money.

Big surprise.

No, it comes down to the associative property of math. Might want to look it up.

Still leaving though. On my way out. Promise this time.

 

[Norton]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an inventor or innovator at a time like this...

Because...

I've got 16 US patents and I've made money on half of them.

Not to mention the companies I started based thereon, employing people, thereby supporting them and their families, and paying exorbitant fees to health insurance companies that put us at a competitive disadvantage internationally, because other countries have better healthcare systems all citizens buy into by (yes) paying their fair share of taxes. I don't need to be told by people about what it takes to be an entrepreneur. Been there, done that. A public healthcare system that competes with insurance companies to keep costs low, will only help the private sector, not hurt it, regardless of what narcissistic, demogogic politicians say.

 

[BenW]

I've got 16 US patents and I've made money on half of them.

So you've availed to state coercion to fuck people over at your own benefit.
Congrats, dawg.
And way to ignore the entire substance of his post, in order to toot your own horn another time.
Were all very impressed with your accomplishments. -_-

 

[Norton]

So you've availed to state coercion to fuck people over at your own benefit.
Congrats, dawg.
And way to ignore the entire substance of his post, in order to toot your own horn another time.
Were all very impressed with your accomplishments. -_-

Just more proof that the human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

Norton: Firm believer in Worthington's Law. Now he's about as dumb as Einstein. Way to go Einstein!

 

[BenW]

Ad Hominem.

Aw fuck, I'm young... Totally forget about that!
Guess I shouldn't even bothering with debate. :'<

Stick around for 7 years, and my views wont be any different.

 

[Satya]

Let's put the ad hominem attacks aside gents.

 

[Azure_Knight]

There is a lot to be concerned about. I think it is strange that so few people are offering solutions. The innovation in our country really seems to be dying. People seem to be a little more obsessed with arguing ideology than with considering pragmatic solutions. For example, if I were a Republican right now I would accept that the government is going to overhaul health care simply because that is the reality of the seat numbers, and that is what the American public decided they wanted at the voting booth. I would then seek to find the best solutions I could and advocate those throughout the health care discussion, so that the system would at least work, even if I didn't agree with the government involvement.

I think the American public has changed its mind since the voting booths. The polls show that a majority do not favor the healthcare reform that is being proposed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/10/polls-show-dim-support-for-health-care-bill/

I think Americans are ready for healthcare reform (even if they do not support the current version of the bill). I think the problem lies in that the 'ideas' stage of the debate is over. Instead, there is a concerted effort to have the bill passed soon so that the President can sign it in January. I think that it has to do with several of those seats being in jeopardy of being lost in elections for 2010 (and thus could result in there not being a majority to pass the current bill).

To me, it seems a case of 'this is what we are going to have whether you like it or not'. Most Americans seem to not like what is being proposed... where is the democracy in that?

 

[Satya]

I think the American public has changed its mind since the voting booths. The polls show that a majority do not favor the healthcare reform that is being proposed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/10/polls-show-dim-support-for-health-care-bill/

I think Americans are ready for healthcare reform (even if they do not support the current version of the bill). I think the problem lies in that the 'ideas' stage of the debate is over. Instead, there is a concerted effort to have the bill passed soon so that the President can sign it in January. I think that it has to do with several of those seats being in jeopardy of being lost in elections for 2010 (and thus could result in there not being a majority to pass the current bill).

To me, it seems a case of 'this is what we are going to have whether you like it or not'. Most Americans seem to not like what is being proposed... where is the democracy in that?

Public option? That accounts for the House bill, but not for the Senate bill. (You better than most people should know a poll is shaped primarily by how you ask the question) And given the months of fear mongering by the insurance companies and conservative media on the issue, I'm not surprised if there has been a significant drop in support. I think if you actually asked most American's they wouldn't even know that the Senate bill didn't have a public option.

The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper. I would trust its overall interpretation of the polls just as much as I'd trust the Huffington Post's interpretation of them.

And of course, different polls show different things...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5687505.shtml
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

 

[Azure_Knight]

Public option? That accounts for the House bill, but not for the Senate bill. (You better than most people should know a poll is shaped primarily by how you ask the question)

I'm somewhat curious by what you mean with this. Could you explain it a bit more?

And given the months of fear mongering by the insurance companies and conservative media on the issue, I'm not surprised if there has been a significant drop in support. I think if you actually asked most American's they wouldn't even know that the Senate bill didn't have a public option.

I would agree that most people probably don't know if there is a public option in either the House or Senate bill. I would argue that both sides have had months though to do their advertisements and campaigns. While I would agree that both sides have had their effect, I'm not sure if the lack of support is from insurance companies/conservative media as it could be for other reasons. Based on that premise, couldn't it be said that a drop in support could be because of liberal media and those who support the bill?

The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper. I would trust its overall interpretation of the polls just as much as I'd trust the Huffington Post's interpretation of them.

That is to say that you would or you wouldn't?

And of course, different polls show different things...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5687505.shtml
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

True. You have to consider the source. I just find it odd that polls could show such different numbers when it comes to support for the same thing. I guess it's all in how the questions are asked.

 

[Satya]

I'm somewhat curious by what you mean with this. Could you explain it a bit more?

How you shape the questions in a poll dictate more the answers you will get than what the participants actually believe relative to the issue.

I would agree that most people probably don't know if there is a public option in either the House or Senate bill. I would argue that both sides have had months though to do their advertisements and campaigns. While I would agree that both sides have had their effect, I'm not sure if the lack of support is from insurance companies/conservative media as it could be for other reasons. Based on that premise, couldn't it be said that a drop in support could be because of liberal media and those who support the bill?

Who could possibly compare to the millions upon millions dumped into this debate by the insurance industry? What business entity is out there fighting for universal health care? Seriously? You make it sound like this has been anything but a virtually one sided media campaign by the right against this legislation.

That is to say that you would or you wouldn't?

NO! Why would I trust a liberally biased paper anymore than I would a conservatively biased paper?

True. You have to consider the source. I just find it odd that polls could show such different numbers when it comes to support for the same thing. I guess it's all in how the questions are asked.

Seriously? This is new information to you? You really think that polls are credibly sources of information?

 

[Azure_Knight]

How you shape the questions in a poll dictate more the answers you will get than what the participants actually believe relative to the issue.



Who could possibly compare to the millions upon millions dumped into this debate by the insurance industry? What business entity is out there fighting for universal health care? Seriously? You make it sound like this has been anything but a virtually one sided media campaign by the right against this legislation.

Big Pharma is one. There are others.

NO! Why would I trust a liberally biased paper anymore than I would a conservatively biased paper?

I'm just interested in what sources you trust and why.

Seriously? This is new information to you? You really think that polls are credibly sources of information?

No, it isn't. I think polls can be credible sources of information, but I'm not sure if any I can name a poll off of the top of my head that is credible.

 

[Satya]

Big Pharma is one. There are others.

Why would Big Pharma want universal health care?

I'm just interested in what sources you trust and why.

None. I just distrust some less than others.

No, it isn't. I think polls can be credible sources of information, but I'm not sure if any I can name a poll off of the top of my head that is credible.

ROFL.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Why would Big Pharma want universal health care?

More people on insurance means more people going to a doctor and getting treatment for illnesses. That also means more people are going to pick up medications. Big Pharma is in for the business.

http://www.thebigmoney.com/features...09/10/19/big-pharma-profit-health-care-reform

None. I just distrust some less than others.

Is your distrust based on whether a paper is considered conservative or liberal? You mentioned that the Washington Times is conservative, so I'm wondering if that played a part in whether you consider them to be a credible newspaper source.


[/qoute]
ROFL.[/QUOTE]

Are there any polls that you trust?