Romney Picks VP

Bears repeating:

the only way to stabilize healthcare is to take it out of the hands of the insurance companies who's only goal is to make money off the fees you pay them to see your doctor.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are nothing but an unnecessary pimp in the process and do nothing to provide actual care. Their profit structure is based on what care is denied, not provided.
 
\\\\()//// said:
So you cannot or will not prove that what you stated is true, and instead seek to divert the question?
Click to expand...

Will not. I was quite clear. I insist on one standard. I will not be doing extra work here. I don't mind on doing a little research and sharing what I find but I am not going to do that when no one else does.

By not requiring proof for the other claim you have proven to me that proof of my claim will not satisfy you because you are clearly biased. So why on earth should I go out looking for data that you would ignore anyway.
 
RedString said:
Will not. I was quite clear. I insist on one standard. I will not be doing extra work here. I don't mind on doing a little research and sharing what I find but I am not going to do that when no one else does. By not requiring proof for the other claim you have proven to me that proof of my claim will not satisfy you because you are clearly biased. So why on earth should I go out looking for data that you would ignore anyway.
Click to expand...

LOL, so you can't back up what you said?
 
RedString said:
Will not. I was quite clear. I insist on one standard. I will not be doing extra work here. I don't mind on doing a little research and sharing what I find but I am not going to do that when no one else does.

By not requiring proof for the other claim you have proven to me that proof of my claim will not satisfy you because you are clearly biased. So why on earth should I go out looking for data that you would ignore anyway.
Click to expand...

Not all sources are created equal. Your source might be some paid WS whore crunching numbers to fit a political agenda. Or it might be legitimate. Credibility (yours) is what's determined and judged, according to the sources you use to prove and/or support your argument; as well, refusal to provide any cites is judged as well. See; Romney's refusal to provide his tax returns. Same type of thing. No biggie. ;)
 
As are Republicans like Mitt, who claim we can increase defense spending without any real cuts in anything else.
Click to expand...

I don't think Romney has ever said this. It sounds like something maybe taken out of context. Our problem is NOT defense spending! That has been an ongoing left-wing liberal meme, because they loathe the military. Recently, the dovish Ron Paul types have idiotically picked up the banner, but that doesn't make it any less stupid and short-sighted. Can we find cuts in the military budget? Of course we can, I think Paul Ryan even proposed cuts in his famous 'Ryan Budget,' and I know Newt Gingrich raised a strong argument for billions which could be cut from the military budget, that would effect hardly anyone. We currently have 30-year-old technology on the drawing board, which is already obsolete. Our bureaucratic system is literally too slow to keep pace with technology, so we are funding weapons systems we'll never use. Some of our foreign bases are no longer vital or necessary, NOT ALL OF THEM, but SOME! The problem is, peace-nicks who loathe the military, see absolutely no use in military strategic advantage, they had just as soon see the entire military dismantled and all our guns melted down.

Again....Reality is, we are not going to dismantle the military or put our national security and interests at risk. It doesn't matter which party is in charge, that isn't going to happen. You can blow all the rhetoric horns you like, it's still not going to ever happen in the reality we live in. Can we find ways to save money and cut the military budget? We HAVE TO! There is no way around that, but to insist that we take some draconian step at gutting our military, while completely ignoring the 800lb unfunded liability gorilla in the room, is beyond stupid. Our problem is spending a trillion dollars a year more than we take in, and that can't be addressed with military cuts alone, I don't give a damn what you think.
 
You asked me "can not, will not." I respond "will not" which was clear in the previous post and so then you demand that I "can not."

Do you see why I am doubtful that you will be swayed by proof. You are not listening anyway. I will save my energies for those who are still willing to consider the information I would provide. You obviously would not and would instead twist anything I offered as you have here. Your not interested in proof, facts or anybody elses opinion.
 
RedString said:
You asked me "can not, will not." I respond "will not" which was clear in the previous post and so then you demand that I "can not." Do you see why I am doubtful that you will be swayed by proof. You are not listening anyway. I will save my energies for those who are still willing to consider the information I would provide. You obviously would not and would instead twist anything I offered as you have here. Your not interested in proof, facts or anybody elses opinion.
Click to expand...

So your notion of debate is that any claim can be made and then no evidence of veracity is needed?
 
Bijou said:
It's a huge part of how they make money and your denial of that ugly reality doesn't change the fact.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to prove his point, does he? I mean what if he "suspects" you might not accept it?
 
\\\\()//// said:
He doesn't have to prove his point, does he? I mean what if he "suspects" you might not accept it?
Click to expand...

He's under no obligatory rule to provide cites for his sources. And as such, he is free to invite scrutiny and doubt about his claims and credibility. Easy-peasy.
 
\\\\()//// said:
So your notion of debate is that any claim can be made and then no evidence of veracity is needed?
Click to expand...

You are still willfuly ignoring my responses. Again, this is why I won't wast my time on you.

I don't need any more proof to counter a claim than was offered in support of the claim.
 
RedString said:
You are still willfuly ignoring my responses. Again, this is why I won't wast my time on you. I don't need any more proof to counter a claim than was offered in support of the claim.
Click to expand...

LOL. Does this tactic of yours convince many people?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can you give me an example of something the government does cheaper than private industry?.......
Click to expand...

I already did... the VA

The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace. For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received. The VA scored 83 out of 100; private institutions, 71. Males 65 years and older receiving VA care had about a 40% lower risk of death than those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whose care is provided through private health plans or HMOs, according to a study published in the April edition of Medical Care. Harvard University just gave the VA its Innovations in American Government Award for the agency's work in computerizing patient records.

And all that was achieved at a relatively low cost. In the past 10 years, the number of veterans receiving treatment from the VA has more than doubled, from 2.5 million to 5.3 million, but the agency has cared for them with 10,000 fewer employees. The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html#ixzz23LwRhfx1
Click to expand...

and to comment on the next paragraph before you do.. ;)

Vets still gripe about wading through red tape for treatment. Some 11,000 have been waiting 30 days or more for their first appointment.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html#ixzz23LwdnXOT
Click to expand...

I called Friday to set up an appointment(NON-VA, just your average hand-doc) to look at my hand(I injured it recently..)..my appointment is scheduled for 9/4. Not 30 days I know, but still a wait.

see, we already know how to do this kind of healthcare.. we've been doing the 'socialized' kind with the VA for years and have the bugs worked out.. but we've also been doing the 'market-pool' thing with Congress and other gov't workers.. and someone esle made the point that in all those other countries.. not a single 'austerity' measure from the Greeks,Germans and whoever on down have called for a change to our kind of health system.. this kind of system is proven to be better,cheaper and more efficient..

I would urge you to look at 'pro-healthcare' sites for a change to read what we already know.. ;) if not to learn more about the benefit, then to better argue your point.. ya know, know your enemy kinda thing.. but IMO, looking at it with non-partisan eyes, you might be surprised to find you agree with many aspects of a single-payer type approach.. heck, (no snickering now-lol) check out the French idea..

When someone goes to see a doctor, the national insurance program pays 70 percent of the bill. Most of the other 30 percent gets picked up by supplemental private insurance, which almost everyone has. It's affordable, and much of it gets paid for by a person's employer.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
Click to expand...

see, both private and public can be accomplished.. and the sicker you are, the less you pay.. but if you want a boob job, well that's what your private plan is for.. and since your regular health checks are covered, that boob-job plan is cheaper..

and they do it cheaper than we do..

It's expensive to provide this kind of health care and social support. France's health care system is one of the most expensive in the world.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.

To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)

Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.
Click to expand...

but it does have it's problems that we, being Americans (:) ) could fix..

Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care.
Click to expand...


I'm just saying.. look around at the pros of this kind of plan..

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care

it might shock you how much you'd like it..

The graph above comes from Edward Cody's overview of the French health-care system. Compared with the U.S. health-care system, the French system covers everyone, spends less, and sees its costs rise more slowly. It's a pretty impressive performance

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/lessons_from_the_french_health.html
Click to expand...

if the idea is really about "spending less" and 'ensuring everyone can see a doctor without losing their house" and not "Hey, that's mine and I don't want you to have it (meaning..healthcare is the last item that separates the haves from the havenots since anyone can own a fur coat and/or a BMW these days).. then a 'France-like' private/public option.. or what we already give to our congressmen and other gov't workers is one of the best out there..
 
Bijou said:
Bears repeating:



Insurance companies are nothing but an unnecessary pimp in the process and do nothing to provide actual care. Their profit structure is based on what care is denied, not provided.
Click to expand...

it's really the most bizarre system... and would be abolished if in use with any other sector..

Imagine this scenario..

You pay an 'agency' $1000 a month to let you into the grocery store.. once you get in there, you have to get your grocery list approved before you can actually buy anything. The 'agency' says "I don't think you really need tampons this month, nor do you need that shampoo,toothpaste and really toilet paper? We'll also just cross of that grnd chuck and give you grnd chicken parts instead.." and then one day, after watching a season of Deadliest Catch you show up for Alaskan king crab and they tell you "Oh, sorry but you didn't like the lobster you had for dinner when you were 9 so we're going to deny any kind of coverage on any shellfish and btw your monthly premium is due in 17 days, would you like to pay it now by check or cc?"

and to change that is evil socialism? wtf? that wouldn't last 1/2 a sec..if it applied to any other part of our lives... but in this country there is an entire political party defending this kind of insanity.. and even worse, thru their scare tactics, they have 1/2 the population of this country up in arms when anyone wants to stop this kind crap..

if it wasn't us, it'd be pretty damn entertaining to watch and see how it play out. HA!
 
RedString said:
Will not. I was quite clear. I insist on one standard. I will not be doing extra work here. I don't mind on doing a little research and sharing what I find but I am not going to do that when no one else does.

By not requiring proof for the other claim you have proven to me that proof of my claim will not satisfy you because you are clearly biased. So why on earth should I go out looking for data that you would ignore anyway.
Click to expand...

seriously?

then why bother with debate? if we're just going to fling our poo on the wall and say it's art, why bother?

I know that's been the trend with the extreme right, just say what you want and damn those who ask.. but that's not really a way to get anything done is it? who cares if 'they' won't.. don't you feel some kind of embarrassment in yourself for not being better? I know I do... even when someone can't throw out a link to save their life, my own personal integrity forces me to research what I preach and use that research as back-up..It helps me to know I'm making a reasonable conclusion and argument... and when received from others, it helps me believe they have done the same...

Maybe I just care about my 'word' more than I should.. and should just not give a shit and throw out whatever makes me feel good..God knows it would be a whhhooolllee lots faster and easier..HA! hell, as much as I like to talk, I could come up with new blog every hour if I didn't have to actually research and 'cite' things..
*shrug*
 
ekg said:
it's really the most bizarre system... and would be abolished if in use with any other sector..

Imagine this scenario..

You pay an 'agency' $1000 a month to let you into the grocery store.. once you get in there, you have to get your grocery list approved before you can actually buy anything. The 'agency' says "I don't think you really need tampons this month, nor do you need that shampoo,toothpaste and really toilet paper? We'll also just cross of that grnd chuck and give you grnd chicken parts instead.." and then one day, after watching a season of Deadliest Catch you show up for Alaskan king crab and they tell you "Oh, sorry but you didn't like the lobster you had for dinner when you were 9 so we're going to deny any kind of coverage on any shellfish and btw your monthly premium is due in 17 days, would you like to pay it now by check or cc?"

and to change that is evil socialism? wtf? that wouldn't last 1/2 a sec..if it applied to any other part of our lives... but in this country there is an entire political party defending this kind of insanity.. and even worse, thru their scare tactics, they have 1/2 the population of this country up in arms when anyone wants to stop this kind crap..

if it wasn't us, it'd be pretty damn entertaining to watch and see how it play out. HA!
Click to expand...

It isn't just the Republicans, unfortuntately. It's the Democrats as well, and anyone else who's in debt to the insurance industry for campaign contributions or other favors. Whores, all. And we're the ones paying.

For-profit health care is uncivilized and despicable. And Americans have been so conditioned to accept that this is just the way it is.
 
can you give me an example of something the government does cheaper than private industry?.......
I already did... the VA
Click to expand...

Hold on, this is not true, the doctors and surgeons at VA hospitals are among the highest paid in their field. Administrators and executives aren't paid as much, but there are many more of them in the VA, as opposed to private systems. So I don't think you've made your case. Now the VA does provide their service to Veterans at no cost to the Veteran, but that doesn't mean it's cheap. As taxpayers, it costs us a great deal more to operate the VA than it takes to run a private hospital-- Mainly because taxpayers don't subsidize private hospitals very much. We have to publicly fund the VA because the private sector would find no profit in free health care to veterans, and we don't have to fund private hospitals who can find ways to earn profit in the private sector. I hope this explains why the two are different, and that you have failed to make a valid argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top