The Truth That Tells a Lie

[shagdrum]

Shag - so if the supreme court isn't the final arbitrator on deciding the constitutionality of a law - who is? You?

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse.

If you expect anyone on this forum to take you seriously you need to start discussing things in good faith. You seem perpetually incapable of doing that. Instead of simply try to do anything and everything you can to rationalize your preconceived notions and in the process inherently distort what others say and insult them.

Unless you start discussing things in good faith (something I don't think you are capable of, though you will try to give lip service to the notion), I am not wasting anymore time with you.

 

[shagdrum]

Dude, read the House resolution, presented below, disapproving the actions of Joe Wilson...

DUDE!!!

 

[foxpaws]

Unless you start discussing things in good faith (something I don't think you are capable of, though you will try to give lip service to the notion), I am not wasting anymore time with you.

I believe we are up to one dozen of this exact little tirade...

So, shag, I really would like to look at what we were starting with here - healthcare, and not the debate of federal regulation of business and the constitutionality thereof. We have regulation, we will continue to have regulation, and it will continue to be upheld as constitutional by the courts.

You don't want to discuss how healthcare is rationed by private insurers? How about my example from above - isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government? If you don't see it as the same thing - what is different?

 

[shagdrum]

I believe we are up to one dozen of this exact little tirade...

So, shag, I really would like to look at what we were starting with here - healthcare, and not the debate of federal regulation of business and the constitutionality thereof. We have regulation, we will continue to have regulation, and it will continue to be upheld as constitutional by the courts.

You don't want to discuss how healthcare is rationed by private insurers? How about my example from above - isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government? If you don't see it as the same thing - what is different?

Using the same dishonest tactics to downplay and ignore the legitimate criticism leveled at you doesn't help your case any...

Again, show some intellectual integrity and we'll talk.

 

[foxpaws]

So shag, isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government?

Can you answer that?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Under the president’s plan, the government’s control of health-care money, its power to pay or not pay health-care bills, would grow.

The way I see it, under the President's plan, the tyrannical choke hold of big corporations, who's mission is to make money by denying us medical care, on our health care money will be relaxed a bit.

I would much rather entrust my health care money to "We The People", rather than some scum bag of corporate stooge who's only mission in life is to get filthy rich by inventing bull :q:q:q:q reasons to cheat me.

...half of health-care costs are incurred by seniors near the ends of their lives. The president has also been clear that he intends for the government to reduce health-care costs.

Show us where the President's health reform plan proposes to reduce health care costs by rationing health care for seniors.

Democrats have blocked legislation that would prohibit government rationing?

You lie.

This president believes in government. He would put the cost-saving mechanisms for health care in Washington.

You lie.

The President's plan doesn't even use the term "cost saving mechanisms."

 

[Calabrio]

The way I see it, under the President's plan, the tyrannical choke hold of big corporations, who's mission is to make money by denying us medical care, on our health care money will be relaxed a bit.

Despite the fact I disagree with you conclusion that "big corporations" have a tyrannical choke over medical care....
You seem to think it's better that government have a tyrannical choke on us.

You fail to acknowledge that reform could take place which doesn't require ANY tyrannical choke.

I would much rather entrust my health care money to "We The People", rather than some scum bag of corporate stooge who's only mission in life is to get filthy rich by inventing bull :q:q:q:q reasons to cheat me.

So why don't you pass health care reform in your community or your state?

Show us where the President's health reform plan proposes to reduce health care costs by rationing health care for seniors.

Show me a country that has socialized medicine that doesn't do that?
How can a system that defies free market principles NOT result in shortages.

Either they cap expenses which will lead to a decrease in supply- shortages and then rationing.
Or they attempt to limit the demand (through rationing).

The health care problems we discuss right now are the result of ignoring the laws of economics and the "solutions" coming from D.C. right now only make the situation worse.

The President's plan doesn't even use the term "cost saving mechanisms."

Really, what is the President's plan specifically.
He'd like to know the details.....

 

[Mick Jagger]

You seem to think it's better that government have a tyrannical choke on us.

Have you ever heard of government health insurance plan, such as Medicare, denying a plan member cancer treatment for not disclosing a medical condition he didn't even know about?

reform could take place which doesn't require ANY tyrannical choke.

Show us this famous reform plan.

So why don't you pass health care reform in your community or your state?

Why don't you pass the brilliant and wonderful reforms you claim could take place without requiring a tyrannical choke?

Show me a country that has socialized medicine that doesn't do that?

The President's plan doesn't propose that the government own and operate the means of providing medical care.

How can a system that defies free market principles NOT result in shortages.

What free market principles will be violated by the Presidents plan and how exactly will they result in a shortage of medical care?.

Either they cap expenses which will lead to a decrease in supply- shortages and then rationing.

Show us were the President's plan caps expenses.

Or they attempt to limit the demand (through rationing).

Show us when the President plan limits demand.

The health care problems we discuss right now are the result of ignoring the laws of economics.

What laws of economics are being ignored?

the "solutions" coming from D.C. right now only make the situation worse.

You got any better ideas?

what is the President's plan specifically.

You tell us dude. You're the one claiming to know what's in the President's plan.

 

[shagdrum]

This message is hidden because Mick Jagger is on your ignore list.

DUDE!

 

[shagdrum]

So shag, isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government?

Can you answer that?

I have already addressed that issue.

Your ignoring that is exceedingly rude and intellectually insulting to everyone here.

 

[foxpaws]

I have already addressed that issue.

Your ignoring that is exceedingly rude and intellectually insulting to everyone here.

Just give me the post number here that deals with that issue - that is all I ask shag - on this thread - just the post number.

Or will you ignore this request? You have on other threads where I ask for a post number so I can find out where you stand on a subject, or an answer to a specific question.

I have reviewed all your posts on this thread and there isn't an answer to my question....
So shag, isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government?

 

[MonsterMark]

Pay for your ObamaCare or Go To Jail

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."


Of course, this is posted by the Politico which must be now a tyrannical right-wing neocon publication.

 

[fossten]

Just give me the post number here that deals with that issue - that is all I ask shag - on this thread - just the post number.

Or will you ignore this request? You have on other threads where I ask for a post number so I can find out where you stand on a subject, or an answer to a specific question.

I have reviewed all your posts on this thread and there isn't an answer to my question....
So shag, isn't private insurer's placing of monetary limits on health care the exact same type of situation that the opponents of the current bill are labeling as 'rationing' by the government?

You make unreasonable demands, moving the goalposts, and then claim 'victory' unless he caters to your whim? You are hideously annoying and deliberately obtuse. Your only goal is to flash and distract, wasting everyone's time by trying to get them to rehash points that they've already made.

It's not Shag's fault that your memory sucks, nor is it his responsibility to refresh your aging faculties just because you are too dense and too lazy to find the information yourself.