atlturbine
Topic Author
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:03 pm

Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:21 am

I do not wish to open a can of worms but would enjoy hearing from those of you following the Republican candidates for President. I thought the debate on CNN tonight was done very well and have changed my mind on one of the candidates.

What say you?

[Edited 2011-09-12 22:25:28]
To the World you might be One Person but to One Person you might be the World
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:29 pm

Seems like the Republicans are a bunch of nutters.

When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

That's really bizarre and raises a lot of interesting questions...

Where were these Republicans during the Terry Schiavo case? Seems like a case of cognitive dissonance.

What if you were in an accident and the emergency response team couldn't find your insurance card?

Why so pro-death in this case, but not for abortions?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:24 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing. I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people. "Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC. My guess is that he sees charitable organizations as competition - without them, the poor would have nobody to turn to but the government for help. If there is one thing a Progressive government cannot abide, it's competition.

Connected to that, isn't it also interesting, when Warren "Raise My Taxes" Buffet decided where his money would go after he died, he decided to leave it to various charities rather than to the Federal government, saying that "Charities are more efficient at helping the poor than government."

Back to the matter at hand. i think Perry stumbled badly on a few questions. While Romney might not be as conservative as i would like, he is starting to look like the one who has the best chance of beating Obama. Cain got in some very good points, but I think he's just a little bit too much - no political experience whatsoever, and while that does hold some appeal, we need someone who knows how to get things done in a political setting. Santorum and Bachmann are too centered on social conservatism - issues that are way down the list of priorities. Gingrich is by far the best qualified person on the stage, and will make an excellent VP in charge of ramrodding legislation, but he will never overcome the fact that he does not engender that 'warm fuzzy feeling' needed to win (although I would vote for him in a New York minute). Huntsman said some good things, but simply lacks charisma.

At this point, I think the ideal ticket is Romney with Gingrich as VP (if he's willing). Not overly conservative socially, and with real experience at balancing the budget, reforming entitlements and grasping problems by the horns. Gingrich I think is the key - the secret weapon. Give him an agenda of fixing things, and let him spend all his time on Capital Hill pushing it through.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:23 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC. My guess is that he sees charitable organizations as competition - without them, the poor would have nobody to turn to but the government for help. If there is one thing a Progressive government cannot abide, it's competition.



   That is exactly the purpose of attacking religion and charities by the left. Its competition to big "G".

Pretty simple answer for the patient in my opinion.... treat them , save them and if it all works out bill them.

I don't know who won , I Like Newt , I like Cain , Bachman ... I don't get Perry yet and Romney looks smooth and polished.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:34 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty sick. I don't think they represent the majority of Republican voters, but someone needs to smack some sense into them.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:37 pm

I didn't watch too much of it, but the GOP and Tea Party need to get their act together, I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.
I actually agreed with Perry's stance on the Border, and their school program in Texas. Bachmann came off as a nasty you know what with her responses. Ron Paul's responses about foreign policy once again shows why he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Huntsman..... he just doesn't seem like leadership material the more I watch him.

Other than that i missed the rest to watch the dolphins and patriots. Looking forward to other's comments, but I was shocked by the decidedly Tea Party friendly crowd at the auditorium, I would have thought theire would be more GOP establishment present.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:40 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Yeah, that's pretty sick.

Except that it did not happen.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
Other than that i missed the rest to watch the dolphins and patriots. Looking forward to other's comments, but I was shocked by the decidedly Tea Party friendly crowd at the auditorium

Well, it WAS organized by a Tea Party group (I forget which one). There will be plenty of other events for other groups (including the GOP itself) to stage a debate. I think it was pretty well done - Blitzer's questions were far better than the jokers at NBC last week.

[Edited 2011-09-13 07:45:04]
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:41 pm

Sad to say I didn't bother watching it. Much as the President has over done it with what seems like a speech-a-day, having a debate-a-week makes them stale. If they had broken the debates down in to a topic a week with the full debate centered on just one topic they would have held much more interest as well as depth. Instead, we get the same questions asked in the flavor of the network hosting it, week after week. Done as a topic of the week each candidate would have had to go in depth on their position instead of just offering up the same regurgitated sound bite. Just my 2 cents.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:55 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Well, it WAS organized by a Tea Party group (I forget which one).

I wasn't meaning that. I was meaning their reactions to certain questions and responses. It was really kind of scary.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
 
Zentraedi
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:30 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:07 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
Yeah, that's pretty sick. I don't think they represent the majority of Republican voters, but someone needs to smack some sense into them.

To me the most striking thing was the inconsistency.
Think back to the Terry Schiavo case.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Except that it did not happen.

Except it did.

http://www.businessinsider.com/party...rs-for-death-of-sick-people-2011-9
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:33 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):

Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing.

Then you should have your hearing checked, because we all heard it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people

Indeed, there were once Victorian era sanitariums where people were warehoused until they died on places like Blackwell's island.

The idea that private charities could ever come up with the money necessary to replace systems like Medicare and Medicaid is a non-starter. For one thing, we have very good historical data on what that does to life expectancies and the availability of care, because that's exactly the system we had in the United States in the 19th century. While other countries enact systems that give their citizens access to care and take the yolk of having to provide these benefits off of their businesses, American Conservatives are yammering on incoherently about how awesome healthcare was during the presidency of Grover Cleveland. Amazing but unsurprising.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
"Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

Unless Ron Paul is a time traveler, I'm pretty sure that he's been working in a system with Medicare and Medicaid for nearly all of his adult life, particularly given the fact that he only became a licensed practitioner after 1965.

The fact remains, Ron Paul thinks that somebody who doesn't have health insurance and gets sick and can't pay for treatment should die. And the Tea Party agrees.

Unlike Kenyan birth certificates, imagined socialism, and Obama being responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping, that is very real and very, very shocking for many Americans. And rightly so.

That's the overwhelming takeaway from last night. Caveat Emptor.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Isn't it interesting that Obama has been trying to eliminate the tax deductability of donations to charity ever since he came to DC.

Totally false. Totally false. Totally false.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
"Charities are more efficient at helping the poor than government."

In some cases they are - in others they are not. Systems like Medicare and Medicaid - how much money do you think individual Americans would be willing to openly and voluntarily contribute to these systems via private donations if they were administered by Private charities? The volume of service provided could not be replicated on a private, non-profit charity level even if individual services might be administered, in some cases, in more efficient ways.

[Edited 2011-09-13 08:35:38]
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:51 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 9):

Except it did.

The cheering was for the idea of people taking responsibility. When asked about "letting them die", I heard two (2) voices say 'yes' and some noise from the crowd - obviously that's a tough question that should not be answered yes or no. Notice that this edit instantly cut away after you heard the 2 voices.

But remember, they were not talking about someone who was poor and could not afford insurance. You conveniently leave out that bit of context. They were talking about somebody well off - who chose to make car payments on his new Mercedes rather than buy health insurance. In that case, I think the resistance to the idea of giving him the same sort of compassionate treatment one would give to a poor person is understandable, don't you think?

Helping the poor, those who are genuinely unable to pay for something they need is something everyone is behind, whether you believe in the government doing it or, as Ron Paul explained, through private charities. This particular example was about someone who freely chose to abuse the generosity of others.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:00 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
They were talking about somebody well off - who chose to make car payments on his new Mercedes rather than buy health insurance. In that case, I think the resistance to the idea of giving him the same sort of compassionate treatment one would give to a poor person is understandable, don't you think?

They were talking about an average young person who has a decent job and makes a decent living.

Nowhere was a Mercedes or "this person is well off" mentioned. Again with the hearing.

Many young americans can't afford health insurance and because they are relatively healthy with a low risk of serious illness, they choose to go without because of the spectacular costs. As more and more young workers are hired as "contract" employees and with far lower benefits than older workers, this trend will continue.

The Tea Party members in the audience essentially cheered YES! at the idea that a person in these circumstances should die rather than have any sort of safety net of medical treatment available to them.

Barbarians.
 
MCOGVADCA
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:05 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:05 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 7):
. If they had broken the debates down in to a topic a week with the full debate centered on just one topic they would have held much more interest as well as depth. Instead, we get the same questions asked in the flavor of the network hosting it, week after week. Done as a topic of the week each candidate would have had to go in depth on their position instead of just offering up the same regurgitated sound bite. Just my 2 cents.

A much better idea. However, such a format would not bode particularly well for certain Tea Party candidates whose ideas are easily dismissed after peeling back a few layers of the argument, even though they sound pleasant on a superficial level.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 9):
To me the most striking thing was the inconsistency.
Think back to the Terry Schiavo case.

"Inconsistency"....you nailed it. The majority far right platform reeks of hypocrisy in the nexus of health care, security and religion. It's less an ideological platform and more of an amalgamation of one-liners designed to fire-up voters, with little heed to consistency. I do respect Ron Paul in this manner, though; I may disagree with many of his ideas (the hypothetical 30-year old question made me feel sick) but he IS ideologically consistent.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing. I did hear Ron Paul (a doctor) say that before there was Medicaid, there were plenty of hospitals that used charitable funds to treat such people. "Nobody was turned away", he said, of the hospital where he worked.

The notion that small religious hospitals could take care of trauma patients is laughable. There are a limited number of Trauma-1 centers in this country and they still struggle to take care of the influx of patients, many of whom (unsurprisingly) are in uninsured. The level of expertise required and equipment necessary to perform high-risk trauma surgery renders the "oh, the community/churches will help out!" solution, barring MASSIVE sources of funding, worthy of derision.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
At this point, I think the ideal ticket is Romney with Gingrich as VP (if he's willing
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Back to the matter at hand. i think Perry stumbled badly on a few questions.

Gingrich has impressed at these debates. Intellectually, he's on a whole different level. I think that's the reason he's still in the race: He would make a great foil to a Romney presidency, he's quite conservative (and thus popular with the other side of the party), he's an expert at passing legislation....and, he's unelectable on his own (for a plethora of reasons that don't need to be rehashed). That ticket is the one with the best chance. Because...

Perry is proving himself to be more and more unelectable with each debate (and I'm getting the feeling more of America is catching on). He stumbles through answers (and this makes him come off as not particularly bright); his actions in office/before he was in office and the lack of congruence with his current message miffs some; and the accusations of crony capitalism are just the beginning (I've heard, and this is unsubstantiated so take it with a grain of salt, that the Dems have so much dirt on him if he were to win the primary, the presidential race would essentially be over before it started).

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
I didn't watch too much of it, but the GOP and Tea Party need to get their act together, I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.

Yeah, you can see the reductionist linear thinking involved (Mexican---->ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!) when the vast majority of Latinos in the country are legal, voting citizens who just preemptively checked the Obama box. Furthermore, at this time, illegal immigration is hardly an issue: Illegals have been leaving the country in droves as a result of the economic downturn (this is what happens during economic downturns worldwide, illegal immigrants return to their home country because they can't find work in their new country). BUT, this issue fires up the TP base like few other, and even though it's hardly appropriate at this time, they continue to discuss it, much to the detriment of their future prospects to be president.

And, personally, I like Huntsman, but this was never going to be his debate. The few attempts at humor were misdirected (this crowd was ready to burn someone at the stake, not chuckle at off-hand remarks). I would've preferred if he'd stuck to his guns instead of mild attempts to pander. He's never going to do well in Iowa, but his ideas could garner support in moderate New Hampshire and Florida if he plays it right.

[Edited 2011-09-13 09:08:09]
12 months: mdl heh rgn kmg nng sha gmp icn can pvg sfo mco lwc sin dps cdg gva
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 10):
The fact remains, Ron Paul thinks that somebody who doesn't have health insurance and gets sick and can't pay for treatment should die.

That's flat out untrue and you know it. I am very well aware of Paul's ideas and he has said numerous times before exactly what Dreadnought mentioned in this thread.

And Paul isn't even in favor of getting rid of Medicare/Medicaid/SS outright because he knows people are addicted to it and doing so means people would be left in the streets.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:19 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
That's flat out untrue and you know it.

Were you listening to his response to the question? Because I certainly was. His response was that this hypothetical individual had made a choice - not to have insurance - and the ramifications of that, in the case of the worst-case-scenario, would be entirely on the individual. In other words, if you don't buy insurance and you might have been able to, and then you get sick, Paul felt the individual was not entitled to any help from the state.

I think Paul's response speaks volumes about what he actually believes, just as his son's did when asked whether or not business owners should be allowed to deny services to persons based on race.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
he has said numerous times before exactly what Dreadnought mentioned in this thread.

Paul's point of view - that private churches and charities can possibly supplant something like Medicare or the VA system - is both extremely naive and deeply dangerous, and if politicians were to act on these ideas the result would be:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
people would be left in the streets.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:30 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 15):
Were you listening to his response to the question? Because I certainly was. His response was that this hypothetical individual had made a choice - not to have insurance - and the ramifications of that, in the case of the worst-case-scenario, would be entirely on the individual. In other words, if you don't buy insurance and you might have been able to, and then you get sick, Paul felt the individual was not entitled to any help from the state.

Research Paul's positions. You clearly are relying on a few seconds TV snap shot.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 15):
Paul's point of view - that private churches and charities can possibly supplant something like Medicare or the VA system - is both extremely naive and deeply dangerous, and if politicians were to act on these ideas the result would be:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
people would be left in the streets.

Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system. We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 12):
They were talking about an average young person who has a decent job and makes a decent living.

Nowhere was a Mercedes or "this person is well off" mentioned. Again with the hearing.

Many young americans can't afford health insurance and because they are relatively healthy with a low risk of serious illness, they choose to go without because of the spectacular costs. As more and more young workers are hired as "contract" employees and with far lower benefits than older workers, this trend will continue.

Once again, We are NOT talking about people who can't afford it. Maybe my Mercedes quip was not fitting, but Blitzer's hypothetical clearly described a person who COULD afford insurance, but CHOSE not to buy it.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 10):

The idea that private charities could ever come up with the money necessary to replace systems like Medicare and Medicaid is a non-starter.
Quoting MCOGVADCA (Reply 13):

The notion that small religious hospitals could take care of trauma patients is laughable.

Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital. Maybe, by not buying insurance while not qualifying for medicaid, you SHOULD run a greater risk that your leg that got run over by a truck amputated for $5,000 rather than meticulously rebuilt for $50,000.

Remember, we are talking here about people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. If something goes wrong, sorry, I have zero sympathy. And I think any sympathy on your part is misplaced.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:51 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Research Paul's positions.

This isn't exactly Ron Paul's first rodeo. I'm familiar with his positions.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system.

No, it cannot. There is simply no way that private charities could organize enough money to provide any kind of equivalent standard of care.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.

We are where we are today because of Market forces. The government did not design the earliest health insurance plans. The government did not invent medical care. The government had nothing to do with the coupling of health benefits with employment. The government gave the health insurance industry anti-trust immunity for eighty years.

Yes, there are regulations. And I'm glad for them. I like to know that there is some oversight over people who are performing operations and treating people for ailments. We could go back to a time when there were no regulations of course, and then we'd be back in 1899 again.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital.

Maybe not at all.

What is being proposed here is essentially throwing away social safety nets and replacing them with Telethons the kind we saw after the Haiti Earthquake.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Maybe not to the same level as a fully funded hospital. Maybe, by not buying insurance while not qualifying for medicaid, you SHOULD run a greater risk that your leg that got run over by a truck amputated for $5,000 rather than meticulously rebuilt for $50,000.

So you're even admitting that the standard of care would be nowhere near the same?

Maybe instead of anesthesia, they could just have a guy club people on the side of the head before operations. Or we could give patients bullets to chew on and lots of brandy.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:07 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
We are where we are today because of Market forces.

Laughable. Government has been manipulating the health care market for decades. The current system is government-dictated, operated by private organizations on its behalf. That's not even close to a free market.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
The government had nothing to do with the coupling of health benefits with employment.

Is this a joke?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
Yes, there are regulations. And I'm glad for them. I like to know that there is some oversight over people who are performing operations and treating people for ailments. We could go back to a time when there were no regulations of course, and then we'd be back in 1899 again.

I'm talking regulations like insurance mandates. Oversight of people performing surgeries is not gonna have a major impact on costs.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:15 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
Laughable. Government has been manipulating the health care market for decades. The current system is government-dictated, operated by private organizations on its behalf. That's not even close to a free market.

Simply not true. Just not factually correct at all. The Government does regulate healthcare - but a company like, say, United Healthcare - that's not run by the government and it doesn't report to the government.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
Is this a joke?

Nope, it's not. At least, not in the United States. Healthcare benefits are a result of employers adding benefits in the 1940's when they could not raise wages but could add benefits. Alot of this has to do with WW2 and it's immediate economic aftermath.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
I'm talking regulations like insurance mandates

As it stands today, there is no mandate on anyone outside of Massachusetts. That legislation will take effect in 2014. Guess who's responsible for the individual mandate in Massachusetts? None other than Mitt Romney. As for mandating that insurance companies cover certain individuals, most insurance companies have been free to drop customers they don't want for ages - excepting children in some cases. Once dropped, they're not forced to let you back in either. Which is how somebody once treated for acne can be denied insurance by all major providers whether they can afford to pay or not. How's that for "government control?"

The system you are describing simply does not exist in the United States. Maybe it does in Brazil, I'm not an expert on Brazil's healthcare system. There are countries where the government closely regulates private insurance companies - including mandating price controls. See Belgium. Where they have a better and more egalitarian system than in the United States and the health insurers are profitable. But in the USA, this just doesn't exist.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:17 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
No, it cannot. There is simply no way that private charities could organize enough money to provide any kind of equivalent standard of care.

With the way costs are going, including overseas in places you would like to mimic, even governments won't be able to afford it.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:29 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
Simply not true. Just not factually correct at all. The Government does regulate healthcare - but a company like, say, United Healthcare - that's not run by the government and it doesn't report to the government.

So? It operates in an environment controleld by the government, and this environment influences the company's decisions.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
Nope, it's not. At least, not in the United States. Healthcare benefits are a result of employers adding benefits in the 1940's when they could not raise wages but could add benefits. Alot of this has to do with WW2 and it's immediate economic aftermath.

Firsty of all, that would be an effect of government policy, isn't it?

Secondly, coupling of health insurance and employment was mandated by the HMO Act of 1973.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
As it stands today, there is no mandate on anyone outside of Massachusetts. That legislation will take effect in 2014. Guess who's responsible for the individual mandate in Massachusetts? None other than Mitt Romney. As for mandating that insurance companies cover certain individuals, most insurance companies have been free to drop customers they don't want for ages - excepting children in some cases. Once dropped, they're not forced to let you back in either. Which is how somebody once treated for acne can be denied insurance by all major providers whether they can afford to pay or not. How's that for "government control?"

States have hundreds of health insurance coverage mandates.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 20):
The system you are describing simply does not exist in the United States. Maybe it does in Brazil, I'm not an expert on Brazil's healthcare system. There are countries where the government closely regulates private insurance companies - including mandating price controls. See Belgium. Where they have a better and more egalitarian system than in the United States and the health insurers are profitable. But in the USA, this just doesn't exist.

You do not understand what insurance means like most people. That's the crux of the matter. As for price controls, these nasty things have adverse effects, like destroying Europe's drug R&D. . .

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v6/n4/full/nrd2293.html


As is often repeated, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Europe is going to pay for its decisions in one way or another.

[Edited 2011-09-13 11:32:31]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:32 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Gingrich is by far the best qualified person on the stage, and will make an excellent VP in charge of ramrodding legislation

I don't think I'd put 'Gingrich' and 'ramrod' in a sentance together!

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):
I watched a bit of the "What would you do to attract Latino Voters" portion, and I have to aay, they just about destroyed their chances with that demographic by talking about illegal immigration and border security. they should have focused on unemployment and education in their response.

If they did, they'd be acused of thinking Latinos are unemployed dropouts.

Quoting MCOGVADCA (Reply 13):
Yeah, you can see the reductionist linear thinking involved (Mexican---->ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system. We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.

If you think private charity works so well, I suggest you go to a place that is almost free of red tape, namely your local soup kitchen, and see how well it's doing at meeting the public's needs. Go ahead, pretty much every town has one these days. I've volunteered at the one in my relatively affluent suburban town, and after spending a few shifts there, I guarantee you that you'd never type in such nonsense as you've done above.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:35 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):
What is being proposed here is essentially throwing away social safety nets and replacing them with Telethons the kind we saw after the Haiti Earthquake.

Safety nets are for people who need it. We are talking here about people who don't want to pay for it even though they can afford it. This is the whole means-testing argument - the government (i.e. the taxpayers) should not pay for something that you are capable of providing on your own, but are too selfish to do so.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 18):

So you're even admitting that the standard of care would be nowhere near the same?

Maybe instead of anesthesia, they could just have a guy club people on the side of the head before operations. Or we could give patients bullets to chew on and lots of brandy.

Nah, do it the old fashioned way - a bottle of whiskey.

Tell me, why are you personally willing to pay for the same level of care for your neighbor, who otherwise has a nice home and plenty of money, vs someone who is genuinely in need? Certainly, nobody is going to let these people die in the streets, but don't people who choose not to insure themselves for purely selfish reasons not suffer some sort of penalty for that decision? I'm open to suggestions - how do you enforce such responsibility, if not by reducing the quantity/quality of the health care you receive?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:37 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 16):
Private charity can absolutely supplant medicare and the VA system. We are not there today thanks to government's obliteration of the health care market with its thousands upon thousands of regulatory pages, bureaucracy, and ambulance chaser laws.

If you think private charity works so well, I suggest you go to a place that is almost free of red tape, namely your local soup kitchen, and see how well it's doing at meeting the public's needs. Go ahead, pretty much every town has one these days. I've volunteered at the one in my relatively affluent suburban town, and after spending a few shifts there, I guarantee you that you'd never type in such nonsense as you've done above.

I've done volunteering, including in Brazil, where the situation is worse than in the US any day you choose. Charity can absolutely replace welfare as long as governments stay out of the way of the economy in general. Without this occuring first, then it can't - and neither can government. Governments are broke.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:23 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
It operates in an environment controleld by the government

As do city buses, airplanes, police officers, the monetary system - the government provides the fundamental organization of society, including upholding and enforcing laws.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Firsty of all, that would be an effect of government policy, isn't it?

In the most out of context sense, I suppose.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
Secondly, coupling of health insurance and employment was mandated by the HMO Act of 1973.

Er...no.

There's a pretty simple historical timeline for how health insurance evolved in the United States to become what it is. At the turn of the 20th century medicines and drugs began coming along that actually cured things, as opposed to the potions and concoctions of earlier eras. Almost as soon as it became possible to cure things like, say Syphillis, people began to see pharmacists and doctors as actually being able to do tangible things to help them. Now, this had been true for the wealthy in the 19th century, but in the early 20th century for the first time these things became available to the general public.

At the same time, American hospitals transformed themselves from the sort of dark, victorian era things they had been - such as the hospital I described on Blackwell's Island (now Roosevelt Island) in New York, to being more modern hospitals that focused on things like making childbirth safer, treating emergencies, and generally making people better - not keeping them stored away from society because something was wrong with them. Indeed, in 19th century New York, many hospitals were little more than quarantine centers on islands. Not so in the 1910s. Hospitals figured out that they could make money selling the more modern medical services and that's exactly what they did.

Medical licensing and oversight became standardized during this era.

Now since medical services suddenly worked, they became much more popular than 19th century hospitals and doctor's offices, which were places you really did not want to go unless you had absolutely no other choice, since they were places where you could easily contract then-deadly diseases.

With large numbers of people now coming in for treatment form licensed doctors with real medicine, not stuff you got at what would become a soda fountain, the costs began to rise because demand was skyrocketing. In short order - something like 15 years - the cost of healthcare went up by a staggering amount, resulting in the situation where many people would only go to the hospital if there was no other choice once again.

The problem was the big bills. Hospitals figured out very early that if you made the bills smaller, or divided them up in to easy-to-digest chunks, then more people would use their services.

The evolution of what we now know as health insurance began at Baylor University Hospital in Texas, which offered an insurance pool to local teachers. For a certain contribution into the pool, which all of the teachers would pay, the hospital offered 21 days a year of full treatment. The risk of many of the teachers needing this much care was low, but individually none would be able to afford a hospital bill without this pool. The idea of the risk pool for medical care was born here - by the hospital.

Contemporaneously in the Northwestern United States, Mining and Logging companies began to pool resources to provide regular injury treatments for their workers. The evolution of these two plans would come to be known, eventually, as Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

During the depression, when few people could afford to pay for much of anything, the Baylor idea became widespread - both because hospitals needed it to survive economically and because the public could not afford any other type of arrangement.

These plans were marketed to corporations and business of all types, which, along with benefits like pension plans and life insurance, began offering them as benefits to workers in lieu of higher wages. And, in part, because this was an era of great corporate welfare. Corporations wanted happier, healthier workers. They had seen the results of unhappy workers in things like the Pullman strike (which, admittedly, is of an earlier era, but there were great lessons there).

On the eve of WW2, just about 10% of Americans belonged to plans like this.

During WW2, you couldn't raise prices and you couldn't raise wages (though there were some exceptions to this). At the same time, you have huge needs for labor and a huge drain on the labor force (soldiers going to war). So what do you offer employees if you can't give them more money but need more and more and more of them?

The same benefits you discovered a few years earlier, which effectively add value to employment.

In 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that Employers do not have to pay taxes on health insurance benefits they provide to their workers.

So now you've got something they want to offer and which nets them a tax break too. You can see why this type of system spread so wildly. Corporations liked this so much that in 1954, they successfully lobbied to have this tax exemption made part of the IRS Code.

In 1953, 63% of American workers had an employer-based health plan, in part thanks to the lessening of the tax burden on businesses because they were offering this. By 1960, it was almost 70%.

This system created a situation where the consumer is completely cut off from the actual cost of what is consumed. The employer pays for the insurance, you make a contribution, the insurance company decides what to pay, a drug company or a hospital sets the price.

Now, if somebody else was paying for your travel bill, you'd travel as much as you want, right? If you just paid a little bit every now and then but were removed from the actual prices of the tickets by things like co-pays? That's how we end up with a system with out-of-control costs.

This is all before the advent of the HMO. Although you correctly point out that the HMO act did allow some federally-affiliated hybrid corporations access to the market, it also represented a freeing of the market - allowing insurers to reorganize into semi-non-profits to gain greater access to the employer-purchased healthcare market at levels they couldn't previously access.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 25):
Charity can absolutely replace welfare as long as governments stay out of the way of the economy in general.

Again, you're talking about a world we've already had. This is exactly how things were in 1880 in the United States. A laissez-faire attitude towards all regulations led to all kinds of abuses of individuals and businesses, the only kind of healthcare available was via private charity or expensive private doctors, and charities did what they could to help the indigent and the infirmed, but what they could provide was not nearly enough to really help. There were no unions, no workers rights, and no safety nets at all. And guess what? We didn't live as long, weren't as prosperous, and weren't as stable or powerful a society.

Going back to the situation 120 years ago is not an option.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:18 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 26):
This system created a situation where the consumer is completely cut off from the actual cost of what is consumed. The employer pays for the insurance, you make a contribution, the insurance company decides what to pay, a drug company or a hospital sets the price.

Now, if somebody else was paying for your travel bill, you'd travel as much as you want, right? If you just paid a little bit every now and then but were removed from the actual prices of the tickets by things like co-pays? That's how we end up with a system with out-of-control costs.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. Here's an interesting piece:

Europe and the US: Whose Health Care is More Socialist?


Quoting CargoLex (Reply 26):
This is all before the advent of the HMO.

You provide a number of examples of the government distorting markets even before the HMO Act was passed. Governments have been pushing the third party payer system for a long time, and that's a problem. See below the two links showing how costs accelerated post the HMO Act:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...28/business/0301-sbn-webHEALTH.gif

http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/econ/classes/nhe00/healthss05.gif

I don't see how mandating many employers to offer these plans can be seen as a freeing of the market.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:21 pm

Gary Johnson should be in these debates!
It's a conspiracy to exclude him so Obama can get 4 more years!
 
Bring back the Concorde
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:26 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 26):
Again, you're talking about a world we've already had. This is exactly how things were in 1880 in the United States. A laissez-faire attitude towards all regulations led to all kinds of abuses of individuals and businesses, the only kind of healthcare available was via private charity or expensive private doctors, and charities did what they could to help the indigent and the infirmed, but what they could provide was not nearly enough to really help. There were no unions, no workers rights, and no safety nets at all. And guess what? We didn't live as long, weren't as prosperous, and weren't as stable or powerful a society.

Going back to the situation 120 years ago is not an option.

When you have an industrial revolution, rise of massive cities, in short, a complete reordering of society, you are bound to run into trouble while you figure out how to live with each other again in this new situation. Regulations are at best a short cut to getting where you are already headed.

As for living as long, it has nothing to do with regulations, but with the advancement of medicine and our understanding of diseases.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:26 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 28):
It's a conspiracy to exclude him so Obama can get 4 more years!

So who are the conspirators? The other GOP hopefuls?   
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:52 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 12):
Perry is proving himself to be more and more unelectable with each debate (and I'm getting the feeling more of America is catching on)

You might want to sneak a peek at the poll numbers. Sit down first. Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._presidential_nomination-1452.html

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
When asked if a coma patient without health insurance should be allowed to die, they yell "YES!!!"

Sadly, it's "gotcha" questions like the one asked that prevent necessary subjects from being discussed honestly. It's shameless appeal to emotion rather than rational thought. You could substitute any number of chronic conditions that don't have the prospect of life being snuffed out by "pulling the plug" and it becomes a much less contentious issue. Is it that monstrous to say that uninsured diabetics should have to pay for their own glucose?

Even worse is the fear-mongering over retirement savings. About two weeks ago on This Week, some sniveling idiot made the comment that individual retirement accounts leave middle class Americans prone to scamming from the likes of Bernie Madoff. It's complete dishonesty.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 1):
What if you were in an accident and the emergency response team couldn't find your insurance card?

U.S. law requires that first responders and hospitals provide emergency treatment. No one in the mainstream is arguing to withhold urgently needed care in emergency situations. The argument should be whether the public is responsible for providing on-going care for chronic conditions when the patient does not have insurance. Those are the costs that are bleeding us dry and will continue to increase as our population ages and adults spend more of their lifetime not working.
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:09 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
You might want to sneak a peek at the poll numbers. Sit down first. Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship.

Uh, I don't think I actually said that, at least not in this thread. You quoted me, but I didn't mention perry in post 12.

As for polls, well, not only is it fourteen months before the election, I'm also certain that the far right loves Rick Perry. Fortunately they are a minority in our country.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
Sadly, it's "gotcha" questions like the one asked that prevent necessary subjects from being discussed honestly. It's shameless appeal to emotion rather than rational thought.

It's an honest question - it's only a "Gotcha" question if the candidate bungles it, which he did. If Ron Paul honestly believes the things he does, he should not be afraid to say "Yes, I favor letting the uninsured die for monetary reasons."

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
It's complete dishonesty.

Except it's the absolute truth. Most Americans can barely balanced their checkbooks or pay off their credit cards in a timely fashion. Social Security is not going to leave you living in riches, but it's there as a last resort should you need it. Spend it early or fritter it away and it won't be there.

The idea of private retirement accounts is as bad now as when President Bush proposed it.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
No one in the mainstream is arguing to withhold urgently needed care in emergency situations.

Three years ago nobody in the mainstream would have argued that raped women should be forced to have the babies of their rapists. Today this a mainstream conservative idea with support from actual electable candidates (I wonder how many on the stage last night support this?).

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
Is it that monstrous to say that uninsured diabetics should have to pay for their own glucose?

Yes, it is. It's barbaric to say to people "Well you don't have money, so you'll just have to die in the street. I have the medicine you need right here, but your circumstances prevent me from giving it to you, so piss off."

It's absolutely appalling.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:26 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
You might want to sneak a peek at the poll numbers. Sit down first. Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship.

The only polls that count right now are the onse dealing with the early primaries in Iowa, NH and SC.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 32):
It's an honest question - it's only a "Gotcha" question if the candidate bungles it,

No, it was a complete gotcha question as it is an extreme case tugging at the hear strings. Let's change it to an uninsured 30 year old that gets a fungal infection under their toenail. Should they have to pay for that on their own if they have no insurance?

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 32):
Social Security is not going to leave you living in riches

SS is not going to leave you living anywhere you want to.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 32):
I have the medicine you need right here, but your circumstances prevent me from giving it to you, so piss off."

It's been demonstrated that that has happened in the UK where medicine for certain types of cancer patients was with held due to a decision that the resources would be better spent elsewhere. Now transfer that to the 30 year old brain dead patient. Should he or she be kept alive on artificial means for 30 or more years on the taxpayers tab? So universal care does not mean that you will be cared for under any and every circumstance. So where are you going to draw the line?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:40 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 33):

SS is not going to leave you living anywhere you want to.

Indeed. That's why you have to work hard and fend for yourself. But if circumstances conspire to leave you in serious trouble, or maybe you just never were able to achieve, or didn't want to, I'd rather know that you had money for food so you don't starve or pick up a gun and start robbing people for money. Even if it means I have to pay more into a system that won't return to me what I put into it. In the grander scheme of things, making sure that there are fewer desperately poor people is good in a macro sense - it preserves the standard of living for those of us who did achieve or who ended up ahead of the game by accident or design.

Quoting dxing (Reply 33):
It's been demonstrated that that has happened in the UK where medicine for certain types of cancer patients was with held due to a decision that the resources would be better spent elsewhere. Now transfer that to the 30 year old brain dead patient. Should he or she be kept alive on artificial means for 30 or more years on the taxpayers tab? So universal care does not mean that you will be cared for under any and every circumstance. So where are you going to draw the line?

That's the real philosophical question about all medical care. I can see why people spend so much time hurling insults about who should pay for what - because as painful as that is, it's not as painful as "What would I do if it were my loved one in there and I had to make a real decision about treatment?"

To be fair, he was talking about diabetics not being able to get insulin if they can't afford it. That's barbaric. Prolonging the life of a braindead patient for thirty years - that might be barbaric in opposite direction.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 27):
I don't see how mandating many employers to offer these plans can be seen as a freeing of the market.

The problem with your analysis of the HMO act is that the HMO act only required employers to offer their employees the choice of Federally-affiliated HMOs if and only if the employer offered traditional health insurance plans. Nobody required them to use these HMOs, and they were not mandated replacements for the offerings of private companies. If employees wanted that other option, they were there.

[Edited 2011-09-13 16:32:10]
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:11 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
Funny - I watched that segment and I heard no such thing.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
Except that it did not happen.

Hmm... the same thing Rick Perry himself said he was "taken aback" by...

"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."


It is a real shame you feel the need to lie through your teeth to us in your struggle to remain eternal apologist for any facet of your party.

But oh, they were just cheering for the concept of personal responsibility!! Of course. It's amazing how you delude yourself into believing that, let alone convincing the rest of us.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:31 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 30):
So who are the conspirators? The other GOP hopefuls?

The press that is so in love with Obama.
There is no reason for Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain to be receiving the amount of attention they are getting. They are complete lightweights and losers.
Mitt Romney won 1 election and that was a fluke. He would have lost re-election in 2006 if he decided to run again. His record as governor of Massachusetts didn't achieve anything groundbreaking and passed a health-care plan that was a mirror image of Obamacare. Rick Santorum got his arse clobbered in an 18 point defeat. That is embarrassing for any office holder. Michelle Bachmann represents a safe gerrymandered district and has no legislative achievements of her own. Herman Cain? Seriously? He's never held an office but has a decent business resume.
Ron Paul has a good message but he is filling the void that Gary Johnson represents.
It should be a race between Perry and Johnson.
The press is afraid that Johnson would take a sizable chunk from Obama's liberal base and would get almost all of the independents. Gary Johnson managed to win over a lot of Democrats to serve two terms as governor of the state of New Mexico - a swing state.
Governor Perry is too much of a Bible-thumper and will alienate a lot of voters. He is also too obedient to his party. I’m sick of these obedient Presidents with questionable religious associations.
Bring back the Concorde
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:12 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 35):
It is a real shame you feel the need to lie through your teeth to us in your struggle to remain eternal apologist for any facet of your party.

As we know, you are not a real member or supporter of anything unless you stand behind every single aspect of it:

Libya & Sharia (by Dreadnought Aug 23 2011 in Non Aviation)

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
The press that is so in love with Obama.

How silly of me to forget that. Of course this is the very same press which made that other only hopeful candidate reconsider his bid... I think his name was Scrooge McTrump or so.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:17 pm

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 35):

It is a real shame you feel the need to lie through your teeth to us in your struggle to remain eternal apologist for any facet of your party.

But oh, they were just cheering for the concept of personal responsibility!! Of course. It's amazing how you delude yourself into believing that, let alone convincing the rest of us.

I heard 2 people say yes. If there were more, I'm sure they would have included that section in the clip.

And once again, we are talking about a hypothetical where someone is asking for trouble through his own irresponsibility - kind of like those 'World's Dumbest...' videos you see on TV of guys who think it would be a wonderful idea to jump off a 3 story building on a skateboard. Why should we have to pay for that? I'm all for helping those who really need the help, but we need to stop subsidizing stupidity.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:23 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
Why should we have to pay for that?

because you value the life of another human more than the certainty that the bill will be paid in full shortly after saving that life - Nobody in the room even considered the option of making the hypothetical patient pay for his treatment after he has received it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
I heard 2 people say yes. If there were more, I'm sure they would have included that section in the clip.

Those are some world-class blinkers you are wearing, Dreadnought!   
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:56 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
because you value the life of another human more than the certainty that the bill will be paid in full shortly after saving that life

No I do not. There is no scarcity of human life - we have too many people on this earth as it is. I have no problem whatsoever letting Darwin take a bigger chunk.

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):

Those are some world-class blinkers you are wearing, Dreadnought!

Watch the tape posted above. Look at the very end, when the question "would you let him die?" is asked. You hear TWO voices say yes.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:18 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
No I do not. There is no scarcity of human life - we have too many people on this earth as it is. I have no problem whatsoever letting Darwin take a bigger chunk.

Marvellous!    I do however wonder why it is, then, unacceptable to allow would-be parents the choice to not have a child they conceived by mistake or accident. If there's too many people, as you say, surely the problem should be attacked at its root?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Watch the tape posted above. Look at the very end, when the question "would you let him die?" is asked. You hear TWO voices say yes.

I also hear Ron Paul skirting the question that is hanging in the air until Wolf Blitzer has enough and asks it outright. Everyone in the room knows it's there and that's what the crowd is cheering - like you are with the above.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:21 pm

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 34):
The problem with your analysis of the HMO act is that the HMO act only required employers to offer their employees the choice of Federally-affiliated HMOs if and only if the employer offered traditional health insurance plans. Nobody required them to use these HMOs, and they were not mandated replacements for the offerings of private companies. If employees wanted that other option, they were there.

You have to bring the tax code back into the picture. There are big tax advantages to employer-sponsored health insurance, and whether these are intended or not, they distort the insurance market. If they are intended, then the government is purposely manipulating it as a matter of policy. If not, then it's an unintended consequence. But in either case it is still distorting the market.

And to clear up what I mean when I say state mandates, here's a link:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...df/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf

Scroll down for the tables. There's a better link out there, but I can't find it right now. .
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:58 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 41):

Marvellous! I do however wonder why it is, then, unacceptable to allow would-be parents the choice to not have a child they conceived by mistake or accident. If there's too many people, as you say, surely the problem should be attacked at its root?

Look at my past posts. I am pro-choice.

Quoting aloges (Reply 41):
I also hear Ron Paul skirting the question that is hanging in the air until Wolf Blitzer has enough and asks it outright. Everyone in the room knows it's there and that's what the crowd is cheering - like you are with the above.

Ah, I see - All this outrage is over the implied question rather than the question actually asked...  

The heavy cheers came when talked about personal responsibility. Anyone who would not cheer that is someone with no moral character whatsoever. When the question became "let him die", a couple of people said yes, but you could tell there was an uncomfortable moment for everyone else as you connect "personal responsibility" with actually letting someone die, even if they were asking for it.

I'll say this - it was a good question from Blitzer, and I think he posed it in the right way. Was it a gotcha question? Somewhat, but I still think it is legitimate because it deals with the intellectual honesty that comes from taking the responsible path. Liberals refuse to take responsibility by saying, "give everyone everything", and not caring what it might end up costing. The conservative stance of personal responsibility is the rational one, the one based on the freedom to do what we want (within the constraints of the rights of others), and to reap what you sow (good or bad), but that entails the necessary conclusion that in this age of bleeding heart media, you are going to have unpleasant consequences.

That is why you saw the hesitation right at the end, as that point became clear. Of the two people that yelled 'yes', they either were caught up in the spur of the moment (possible), or were absolutely rational, and kept in mind that the hypothetical in question was about a person who freely chose not to carry insurance even though he could afford it. Strictly speaking, I would have said 'yes' to that question myself. It's an honest answer.

The dishonesty comes when people like you try to extend that answer from the limitations of the hypothetical (person who can afford, but chooses not to have insurance), and extend it to mean that anyone without insurance should not be treated. That is dishonest, but I expect no less from the left. I expect that was one of the causes of hesitation at the end of the clip, as hundreds of conservatives realized that "Uh oh, an edit of this is going to be on Youtube and blown out of context". Sure enough, that's what happened.

My personal stand is a bit harsher than the rest of the GOP. If a motorcyclist crashes at 120mph while trying to elude police, I would not call an ambulance. I would wait a while, and then call a coroner. Much cheaper for everyone, and frankly, the guy was an assh*le. Let's keep our healthcare funds for a) those who can pay for it, and b) those who, by no clear fault of their own, cannot get it or afford it. I'm all for helping people in need. But I have no desire to subsidize people like this.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/113613555...vs-spiked-fence/?playlist_id=87485

If I were the medic called on the scene, that guy would be out of luck.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:05 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 22):
You do not understand what insurance means like most people. That's the crux of the matter. As for price controls, these nasty things have adverse effects, like destroying Europe's drug R&D. . .

The article expressively states, that the "Clinical Trials Directive, adopted in 2001 to harmonize safety regulations across Europe" is a another drive behind the trend, and those safety regulations are different from price controls.
The article also states that Europe is about to adjust things to make R&D more attractive again.

There are common safety regulations in Europe, but there's no common price structure.

Pharmaceutical companies in Europe spend less money on R&D than on PR. The gap is also the attempt to make European politicians waive existing price controls, an attempt that will ultimately fail, because a) the trend worsens, even though costs for drugs went up and b) the U.S. will probably sooner or later introduce price controls as well.

With that being said, I wonder how Ron Paul will make physician breach their Hippocratic Oath.
I support the right to arm bears
 
MCOGVADCA
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:05 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:52 pm

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
You might want to sneak a peek at the poll numbers. Sit down first. Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo..._presidential_nomination-1452.html
Quoting CargoLex (Reply 32):
Uh, I don't think I actually said that, at least not in this thread. You quoted me, but I didn't mention perry in post 12.

In defense of CargoLex, it was I who said that. Obviously, I'm well aware of how the candidates are polling; however, these polls do not reflect a post-five Republican debates Rick Perry. They merely reflect the enthusiasm of his initial plunge into the race, not a sustainable lead. If he's able to maintain such a lead for a few months, then we can begin citing national poll numbers. Right now, initial primaries are what's important. Furthermore, his numbers are not "taking-off like a rocket ship;" They took off like a rocket ship and have subsequently plateaued as a result of his alienation of the more moderate elements in the party. Please conduct a little research yourself before you begin making snarky political commentary. I know dilettantism is de rigeur on these forums, but you only embarrass yourself with comments like these. Dxing, while we may disagree on ideology, understands the political process:

Quoting dxing (Reply 33):
The only polls that count right now are the onse dealing with the early primaries in Iowa, NH and SC
Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
because you value the life of another human more than the certainty that the bill will be paid in full shortly after saving that life - Nobody in the room even considered the option of making the hypothetical patient pay for his treatment after he has received it

Amen, aloges!
12 months: mdl heh rgn kmg nng sha gmp icn can pvg sfo mco lwc sin dps cdg gva
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:54 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 25):
I've done volunteering, including in Brazil, where the situation is worse than in the US any day you choose. Charity can absolutely replace welfare as long as governments stay out of the way of the economy in general.

Put our faith in unbridled capitalism? LOL! All evidence shows that this will just make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 31):
Perry is taking-off like a rocket ship.

Great news for the Dems! With Perry, the red-meat right will be happy, but with him the 'Pubs are just giving away the moderate vote. The 'Pubs have been struggling to find someone who can capture both the right and the middle, and Perry just ain't it, neither is Romney.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
cargolex
Posts: 1201
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:42 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 37):
I think his name was Scrooge McTrump or so.

Hah! I think I might start calling him that all the time now.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
I heard 2 people say yes. If there were more, I'm sure they would have included that section in the clip.

How many times have you and other conservatives voiced concerns about the "new Black Panther party" - which was essentially two nutty guys standing around outside one single polling place during one election in a district that voted their way anyway?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
No I do not. There is no scarcity of human life - we have too many people on this earth as it is. I have no problem whatsoever letting Darwin take a bigger chunk.

So you think that preserving money is more important than preserving life? Interesting. Interestingly Barbaric, that is.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
Liberals refuse to take responsibility by saying, "give everyone everything", and not caring what it might end up costing.

Not true.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
If I were the medic called on the scene, that guy would be out of luck.

If you are medic and you refuse to treat somebody because you "don't feel they deserve it" you'll lose your medical license, likely get fired, and probably be sued into oblivion, and rightly so. It's not your call to make.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
The conservative stance of personal responsibility

Still waiting for you to take responsibility for the thousands dead in Iraq and the thousands of dead American soldiers who went to war for those "conservative views."

Every time you're called to the carpet for mistakes made by the people you endorse and the philosophy you subscribe to, somehow it's never your fault. It's always "The dang liberal media" or "that guy isn't a real conservative." There's more obfuscation here than at the Edsel Division.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
You have to bring the tax code back into the picture. There are big tax advantages to employer-sponsored health insurance, and whether these are intended or not, they distort the insurance market.

Of course, it's tax breaks that allowed the system to get where it is today. If offering the benefits had not been a source for companies to pay less taxes while simultaneously sweetening the pot for employees (and therefore having to pay out fewer wages), it would never have gained the acceptance it did.

But that's the government saying "we're not going to tax you on this." NOT the government saying "we're going to force you do to do this." They are two very different things.

In many ways, the Government did here exactly what you say it should do - stay out of the way by not taxing and by maximizing the width of the competitive field.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:59 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
All evidence shows that this will just make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

ALL evidence.

Not to mention, worker standards will plummet and we won't have parks or trees and we'll all have to dress as if we're in the desert year round to prevent the sun from burning directly through us on its way through the lack of atmosphere.

The idea of self-regulating business is an oxymoron.

NS
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 5393
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Republican Debate

Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:01 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
If they did, they'd be acused of thinking Latinos are unemployed dropouts.

Well at least they would have been talking about the US Citizen Latino's instead of immediatly drawing them to all be illegal immigrants trying to jump into this country.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], desertjets, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests