Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) So are you saying, like global warming, that this "crisis" of a large number of Americans not being able to afford adequate healthcare is just partisan rhetoric? I seem to remember a certain program championed by Hillary during Clinton's second administration that was defeated by the Republicans. Perhaps the left was not criticizing the spending plans of that administration because they were actually trying to do something about it! Maybe there's a link on that costs of war that would show how much Americans like you (and/or your children) could save on your tax bill if we weren't pouring money into a dumb war. Perhaps that would interest you a lot more. Don't worry; with these nifty tax cuts, we don't actually have to pay for anything! It's like a credit card, tee hee! *Edit: LIBERAL PAGE TOP! EAT DIX, REPUBLICONSERVATRASH! * Edited May 18, 2005 by Dr_Flash_Amazing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Which one of the following statements is false? I am a compassionate conservative. I am a fiscal conservative. I didn't avoid service in Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) So are you saying... that this "crisis" of a large number of Americans not being able to afford adequate healthcare is just partisan rhetoric? Yes, a lot of it is. And I also challenge that many people *choose* not to "afford" health insurance by allocating their disposable income on other products of their choice - first and foremost on personal entertainment and material goods. One major misdirection of the who health insurance issue is differentiating between "catastrophic" coverage and general coverage. It's lack of the former that could ruin a family - the latter can and should be paid by choice *privately*. For those who truly can not afford it, doctors should do pro bono work and charities can pick up the slack - charities that, unlike government, are actually accountable, and fraud can be more easily checked out. Mmm... thread drift... Edited May 18, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 we all pay for the war in a million different ways - land use fees, gas taxes, decreased public services (like police, jails) decrepit schools, lack of health insurance of course, etc ...all the ways our government is nickle and diming us to death and decreasing services and slashing budgets all to pay for a war where we had no business being in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 we all pay for the war in a million different ways - land use fees, gas taxes, decreased public services (like police, jails) decrepit schools, lack of health insurance of course, etc ...all the ways our government is nickle and diming us to death and decreasing services and slashing budgets all to pay for a war where we had no business being in the first place. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam - none of those were cheap either. Spending is of course governed by a production possibilities frontier, and funding a war invokes an opportunity cost. But, doing NOTHING substantive to counter external threats and crises/political realities with global impact also can impose huge costs. Pay now or pay later. Unfortunately, accurately predicting the costs of inaction in advance is not possible, but monday morning quaterbacks abound (usually with a myopic POV). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 we all pay for the war in a million different ways - land use fees, gas taxes, decreased public services (like police, jails) decrepit schools, lack of health insurance of course, etc ...all the ways our government is nickle and diming us to death and decreasing services and slashing budgets all to pay for a war where we had no business being in the first place. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam - none of those were cheap either. Spending is of course governed by a production possibilities frontier, and funding a war invokes an opportunity cost. But, doing NOTHING substantive to counter external threats and crises/political realities with global impact also can impose huge costs. Pay now or pay later. Unfortunately, accurately predicting the costs of inaction in advance is not possible, but monday morning quaterbacks abound (usually with a myopic POV). Sorry but I don't buy it. I would rather that my taxes be used to build a strong domestic culture, improving schools, infrastructure and public programs. F*ck the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Now who's engaging in cheap rhetorical tricks? You seem to be implying that there is no substantive difference in funding outlays between this administration and the previous! Is there? W/r/t to "health insurance for children"? Your comment about the costs of the war implies that there is some huge, unaddressed need in domestic spending, and that said need materialized under the current administration. This is typical rhetoric from the left when in opposition: manufacture a social crisis, and demagogue it ad nauseaum. When in power, the former opposition summarily shuts up - the social crisis is gone. Maybe not go away, but at least they're being discussed, considered and possibly addressed. Now, well, lets just pretend there isn't a problem It's like the debt, or bad news in Iraq... If the media would just stop discussing all of the bad news, there wouldn't be any bad news! Can we get a ostrich with it's head in the sand graemlin? So many potential uses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 So are you saying... that this "crisis" of a large number of Americans not being able to afford adequate healthcare is just partisan rhetoric? Yes, a lot of it is. And I also challenge that many people *choose* not to "afford" health insurance by allocating their disposable income on other products of their choice - first and foremost on personal entertainment and material goods. One major misdirection of the who health insurance issue is differentiating between "catastrophic" coverage and general coverage. It's lack of the former that could ruin a family - the latter can and should be paid by choice *privately*. For those who truly can not afford it, doctors should do pro bono work and charities can pick up the slack - charities that, unlike government, are actually accountable, and fraud can be more easily checked out. Mmm... thread drift... good points, our consumer culture certainly does seem to have our spending priorities out of wack, 2 cars per household, big TV, all mandatory! Insurance, someone else will pick up the tab anyway! Charities picking up some slack? Good idea, but with current med-malpractice laws, who in the hell could afford to? Same with pro-bono stuff. The Med-Mal insurance really needs to get fixed, certainly not the only issue here, but definitely a big one. For me the two most telling points were 1. My aunts insurance (as in Internist in Cleveland, went up $30k in one year , solution, she moved to Hawaii, and 2. There are no OBGYN in West Virginia Malpractice insurance costs too much, end result, to get pre-natal care women have to go out of state, or just not get it, which ends up causing more high-risk stuff, leading to more complications, more law suits etc ) Spooky, Spooky if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 The Med-Mal insurance really needs to get fixed, certainly not the only issue here, but definitely a big one. For me the two most telling points were 1. My aunts insurance (as in Internist in Cleveland, went up $30k in one year , solution, she moved to Hawaii, and 2. There are no OBGYN in West Virginia Malpractice insurance costs too much, end result, to get pre-natal care women have to go out of state, or just not get it, which ends up causing more high-risk stuff, leading to more complications, more law suits etc ) Spooky, Spooky if you ask me. I was going to mention these issues as well - thanks for bringing them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Seems to me that N. Korea can really only pose an imminent thread to S. Korea primarily, and possibly Japan or China in the mid-term. I always knew you were a troglodyte. 7 years ago they tested a missile that flew over Japan. They are currently threatening to test a nuclear bomb with material for more. What is that but an imminent threat to Japan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The Med-Mal insurance really needs to get fixed, certainly not the only issue here, but definitely a big one. For me the two most telling points were 1. My aunts insurance (as in Internist in Cleveland, went up $30k in one year , solution, she moved to Hawaii, and 2. There are no OBGYN in West Virginia Malpractice insurance costs too much, end result, to get pre-natal care women have to go out of state, or just not get it, which ends up causing more high-risk stuff, leading to more complications, more law suits etc ) Spooky, Spooky if you ask me. I was going to mention these issues as well - thanks for bringing them up. Studies have shown rises in malpractice insurance to track the overall health of the insurance industry, not the rate of malpractice claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I'm not so concerned about the rate of malpractice claims, nor the the health of the insurance industry. When doctors begin shying away from practicing in certain fields, or in certain locations because it isn't affordable there's a huge issue and the end result is untreated patients. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I always knew you were a troglodyte. If you wish to trade insults, I'm game. Just about every posting from you screams "profoundly unhappy, cynical asshole". 7 years ago they tested a missile that flew over Japan. They are currently threatening to test a nuclear bomb with material for more. What is that but an imminent threat to Japan? And how is that an imminent threat to the US? Irrespective of post WWII, cold-war treaties, why does the US need to protect Japan anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I think he's saying that at the current rate, it won't just be an imminent threat to Japan, but maybe Hawaii, Seattle, LA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I think he's saying that at the current rate, it won't just be an imminent threat to Japan, but maybe Hawaii, Seattle, LA... It's much more likely that N.Korea would invade S. Korea and use nukes as a threat to non-intervention from foreigners than that N. Korea will launch nukes in our direction. Regarding the latter, I think that is really unproven as a threat. Sorry, but the Iraq war has caused me to be more suspicious about claims of "imminent threats". It is no small thing to deliver a nuclear device across thousands of miles of ocean. And I don't see any link between Kim Jong Il and Al Qaeda. Furthermore, N. Korea is isolated geographically (unlike Iran and iraq) which complicates their ability to exchange nuclear materials with other nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 You obviously don't have a clue. N. Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. They are EVIL!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 You obviously don't have a clue. N. Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. They are EVIL!!!!! Kim Jong Il is evil; as are his cronies. We all know that the US picks and chooses which dictators to knock off. Obviously, the cost is pretty high - in lives, $$, and diplomatic repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 And I don't see any link between Kim Jong Il and Al Qaeda. Furthermore, N. Korea is isolated geographically (unlike Iran and iraq) which complicates their ability to exchange nuclear materials with other nations. Since when is Al Qaeda the only threat we face? Any nutso with a nuke should be viewed as a threat. And Kim is most certifiably nuts. Troglodyte is a cave dweller - from your obliviousness to fact I wonder how much daylight you see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I'm not so concerned about the rate of malpractice claims, nor the the health of the insurance industry. When doctors begin shying away from practicing in certain fields, or in certain locations because it isn't affordable there's a huge issue and the end result is untreated patients. If rises in malpractice premiums aren't linked to rises in malpractice claims, why will limiting the claims reduce the premiums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Since when is Al Qaeda the only threat we face? Any nutso with a nuke should be viewed as a threat. And Kim is most certifiably nuts. Not just a threat but an imminent one. I have been quite consistent in using that term as an indivisible unit in this thread. An *imminent* threat implies an immediate ability to hit us with nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Sweet! Is it time for another nuclear arms race? Nuke-yu-ler proliferation rules! Ah, who doesn't miss the days of mutually assured destruction and those oh-so-funny near-armageddon close calls! "Whoops! I thought they were arming their nukes! Heh-heh! Almost pushed the ol' button, there...whooo-whee!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Sweet! Is it time for another nuclear arms race? It's already started and the world doesn't have the will (or means?) to stop it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Awesome! Time to offer alms of jelly beans at Ronald Reagan's tomb and pray for swift, fiery annihilation! BRING ON THE NEW GLOBAL HOLOCAUST! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Awesome! Time to offer alms of jelly beans at Ronald Reagan's tomb and pray for swift, fiery annihilation! BRING ON THE NEW GLOBAL HOLOCAUST! The "new" global holocaust? There wasn't one before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Just about every posting from you screams "profoundly unhappy, cynical asshole". Damn, tell him to lay off then. That's my schtick. And ChrisT gets the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.