Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2011-01-27 12:24:31
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6369|North Tonawanda, NY

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I got to admit I thought obama's speech was pretty vanilla, Lets face it, in his defence, they all are. I don't know why I expected more. It just seems like he is happy to be batting .155 as long as he doesn't get sent down. I never liked or trusted the Guy, but I thought he wanted to be great and remembered. If you knew anything about the Eras or topics he brushed on, it didn't even make sense.  It doesn't seem like he even cares or knows what he is reading. Like the speech were he said " The Constitution says - All men are Created equal ! "
I thought I saw this somewhere before...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p3437948

Nice, lol
2011-01-27 13:23:12
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:


Good job answering the post, Lowing.
What answer were you looking for? You didn't ask me anything.

But if you are looking for an answer here it is: There has been no greater govt. growth and involvement in personal lives and private enterprise in the history of our nation than now. With govt. stimulus and forced govt health care etc...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00153.html so no I do not agree with your assessment that our president is centralist.
There is literally nothing in that link or in your comment that could dissuade belief that he's tried to remain a centrist. Not to mention the fact that you still insist on calling it "govt health care" when it's been proven time and time again that the health care reform bill is NOT gov't run healthcare. Not that I'd expect you to know the difference.

Ken was completely spot on in his diagnosis of your arguments. You fail to answer things and you attribute arguments to people and then try to argue them. It's really funny.
Well if you can not see that this is the biggest govt. intrusion and growth into private lives and private enterprise since FDR. Then I am sorry you can not see just how left this guy is.

As far as my forced govt. healthcare.

"(1) Forcing insurers to accept all applicants.

(2) The President says that for those unable to pay for private insurance, the government will subsidize their premiums.

(3) Obamacare imposes mandatory coverage.

(4) In addition to individual mandates, Obamacare would impose employer mandates."

"Health care in the US is covered by three main systems-- Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments beyond 2017. The third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the foreseeable future.
Obama's plan is to take the one system meeting its obligations and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt."

I dunno buddy, sounds an awful like government to me.
2011-01-27 13:31:04
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6776|Long Island, New York
Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-fina … -whoppers/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … alth-care/

You can think gravity doesn't exist either, doesn't mean you're right.
2011-01-27 13:50:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

Poseidon wrote:

Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-fina … -whoppers/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … alth-care/

You can think gravity doesn't exist either, doesn't mean you're right.
No actually you can take what I posted, sugar coat it, put blinders on, and tell the world the govt. has not taken over healthcare, and it still does not mean you are right.  Or did you not read what I posted that the govt. is going to do?
2011-01-27 13:53:47
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6776|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:

Or did you not read what I posted that the govt. is going to do?
I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
2011-01-27 14:04:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Or did you not read what I posted that the govt. is going to do?
I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
Well if you do not consider govt. forcing its will in private enterprise as a govt. takeover, If you do not consider govt. subsidizing those that are not insured as govt. takeover, if you do not consider the govt. forcing us to buy a product which we may not want a govt. takeover, then I dunno what to tell ya.
2011-01-27 14:06:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Or did you not read what I posted that the govt. is going to do?
I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
The biggest issue that anyone should have with the healthcare bill is the mandate. Also, requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions regardless of their past participation in health insurance is retarded as well. Of course, the former would get rid of the latter, but as I said, the former is not only unconstitutional, it is gross intrusion on the part of the government into our daily lives and decisions. Forcing people to purchase a consumer good or face a penalty is coercion at its worst.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-27 14:10:47
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6776|Long Island, New York

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Or did you not read what I posted that the govt. is going to do?
I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
The biggest issue that anyone should have with the healthcare bill is the mandate. Also, requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions regardless of their past participation in health insurance is retarded as well. Of course, the former would get rid of the latter, but as I said, the former is not only unconstitutional, it is gross intrusion on the part of the government into our daily lives and decisions. Forcing people to purchase a consumer good or face a penalty is coercion at its worst.
And I understand that, but there's mandates with car insurance as well is there not? Do we consider the car insurance companies to have been taken over by the government? Of course not. And it still does not make the bill "government run healthcare". It simply is not.
2011-01-27 14:10:51
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6781|Texas - Bigger than France
Government healthcare will kill old people
2011-01-27 14:14:11
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:


I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
The biggest issue that anyone should have with the healthcare bill is the mandate. Also, requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions regardless of their past participation in health insurance is retarded as well. Of course, the former would get rid of the latter, but as I said, the former is not only unconstitutional, it is gross intrusion on the part of the government into our daily lives and decisions. Forcing people to purchase a consumer good or face a penalty is coercion at its worst.
And I understand that, but there's mandates with car insurance as well is there not? Do we consider the car insurance companies to have been taken over by the government? Of course not. And it still does not make the bill "government run healthcare". It simply is not.
The difference is that only liability insurance is absolutely required on any vehicle not covered with a lien. Liability protects others from anything you may do in your car to them. It does not cover you or your vehicle. Why? Because you are responsible for yourself, but if you somehow injure others it leaves them covered for your mistakes.

Health care coverage covers the individual solely. It does not protect others from injuries you may cause them. There is a very vast gulf between the two.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-27 14:22:53
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6781|Texas - Bigger than France
What you are missing Poseidon is that all government spending is subject to government oversight.  So the website that you posted talks about getting private insurance as a positive.  Well, we kind of are worried about the oversight.

You ought to hear doctors complain about getting reimbursed for medicare.  To think that shifting to insurance is going to make it better is naive, IMO.  Sure, it'll help everyone get healthcare, but there will be less specialists in the long run = lower quality of care.

I'm actually happy that we are going to insure "uninsurables".  But I feel long term it will be damaging.

Last edited by Pug (2011-01-27 14:23:40)

2011-01-27 14:29:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

Poseidon wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I did. None of it is anything more than regulation which has been happening for decades and decades and decades in many different sectors of the US. None of what you posted is a government takeover of healthcare.

The biggest fucking political lie of 2010 was decided to be that the health care bill was a "government takeover". I'm not surprised you just dismiss it. Not at all.
The biggest issue that anyone should have with the healthcare bill is the mandate. Also, requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions regardless of their past participation in health insurance is retarded as well. Of course, the former would get rid of the latter, but as I said, the former is not only unconstitutional, it is gross intrusion on the part of the government into our daily lives and decisions. Forcing people to purchase a consumer good or face a penalty is coercion at its worst.
And I understand that, but there's mandates with car insurance as well is there not? Do we consider the car insurance companies to have been taken over by the government? Of course not. And it still does not make the bill "government run healthcare". It simply is not.
Do not compare car insurance to govt. forced health care. It is not the same thing.

You are not forced to buy car insurance. You only need car insurance if you are going to operate your vehicle on public roads. You can drive your car on your own land all day long without being forced to buy insurance. It is an agreement between the govt. and the individual that, if you are going to operate your car on public roads you will carry insurance to protect others you may harm. Govt. forced health care is not the same thing.

If a company is being told what to do when to do it and how to do it, by the govt. to the point of even disregarding that companies profits, YES, it is govt. run

Also by using your, car insurance is the same thing, analogy, then since the govt, is forcing companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, then it must make perfect sense to you to allow a person to buy car insurance right after their accident to cover the cost of the car and those hurt.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-27 14:47:33)

2011-01-27 15:11:08
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5940|College Park, MD
I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-01-27 15:12:28
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
You do, in the civilized states anyways.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-01-27 15:21:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
Not to buy, to register.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-27 15:22:03
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6871|949

how would you get insurance on a car you don't even own yet
2011-01-27 15:23:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
Then you would be wrong. You need to proof of insurance, if you are going to finance a car, or register a car to drive on public roads. You do not need insurance to buy a car.
2011-01-27 15:24:15
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
Then you would be wrong. You need to proof of insurance, if you are going to finance a car, or register a car to drive on public roads. You do not need insurance to buy a car.
So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-01-27 15:26:39
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6736

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

how would you get insurance on a car you don't even own yet
i insure rental cars, every time
2011-01-27 15:27:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
Then you would be wrong. You need to proof of insurance, if you are going to finance a car, or register a car to drive on public roads. You do not need insurance to buy a car.
So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
might wanna go back read what I posted then make a different comment. One that address what I said.
2011-01-27 15:29:06
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5824

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm pretty sure that to buy a car you need proof of proper insurance.
Then you would be wrong. You need to proof of insurance, if you are going to finance a car, or register a car to drive on public roads. You do not need insurance to buy a car.
So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
Uh you only need insurance for public roads and highways. You could buy a car with cash and drive it on your property all you want without insurance.

In any case driving is considered a privilege not a right and also not mandatory. You can't compared car insurance to government mandated health insurance.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-01-27 15:29:52)

2011-01-27 15:30:37
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Then you would be wrong. You need to proof of insurance, if you are going to finance a car, or register a car to drive on public roads. You do not need insurance to buy a car.
So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
might wanna go back read what I posted then make a different comment. One that address what I said.
Dude, I'm just getting my facts straight here.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-01-27 15:31:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:


So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
might wanna go back read what I posted then make a different comment. One that address what I said.
Dude, I'm just getting my facts straight here.
You need insurance to get plates. You don't need it to purchase the vehicle.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-01-27 15:32:06
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:


might wanna go back read what I posted then make a different comment. One that address what I said.
Dude, I'm just getting my facts straight here.
You need insurance to get plates. You don't need it to purchase the vehicle.
Okay, just making sure.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2011-01-27 15:33:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6890|USA

UnkleRukus wrote:

lowing wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:


So you could buy a car, but could not use it legally without insurance. So what would be the point of buying a car and not insuring it if you're going to get a fine/jailtime for it.
might wanna go back read what I posted then make a different comment. One that address what I said.
Dude, I'm just getting my facts straight here.
The facts are addressed already, your conclusions based on what you just read is off the mark. I merely suggested you go back and re-read what was said, maybe you can draw a more coherent conclusion.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard