 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 19:26, Shay wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>>>> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not
>>>> forced?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
>>> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
>>
>> Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But
>> that's a minor point.
>
> Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!
That doesn't actually constitute an argument. It certainly doesn't
address anything I said.
Earlier, you dismissed anecdotes. Frankly, anecdotes, poor as they may
be, are better than your response.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we
> failed short?
Pretty much. Guess that means we should call it quits, scrap it, and
start from scratch. (My ex-landlord was/is in the 'anti-UN' camp with
the idea that since the UN has failed its original intent, the whole
thing needs to be terminated...instead of, say, fixed to correct the
problems. But what's a different can of worms. ...OR IS IT? *dramatic
chord*)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:54:32 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we
>> failed short?
>
> Pretty much. Guess that means we should call it quits, scrap it, and
> start from scratch. (My ex-landlord was/is in the 'anti-UN' camp with
> the idea that since the UN has failed its original intent, the whole
> thing needs to be terminated...instead of, say, fixed to correct the
> problems. But what's a different can of worms. ...OR IS IT? *dramatic
> chord*)
Is that sarcasm I detect? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:49:34 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 19:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
>>
>> I think you missed an "only" in there. IOW, a single-payer system
>> isn't the only option.
>
> No, I meant what I said. He stated that he is not pursuing single
> payer:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-
Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/
>
> "All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."
>
> (Never mind his lies in what he said throughout...)
So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never denied
that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you highlighting
that he's stated both?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 22:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never denied
> that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you highlighting
> that he's stated both?
Yes.
He's a politician, after all. When it's convenient, he said he was for
it. When it's convenient, he dismisses it as a fantasy (not his words,
but pretty much says it's impossible to achieve).
I'm not going to assume one of his statements as truth and the other as
false. Both are suspect.
He has a history of doing this all along. Pre-Senator Obama was a very
different person (in rhetoric) than Senator Obama, and slightly
different as President. He says what he has to to get votes, and has
done a 180 degree turn on quite a few issues.
--
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.
You're misstating the argument, consistently enough that I have to
assume that either
a) You really don't understand the issue,
b) you understand but don't want anyone else to understand.
To use your lifeboat analogy:
We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
them drown.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt,
Thanks, Bush. You did your country good.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I'm not preaching that Capitalism is a panacea or that our Constitution
> is perfect, but my principal fear is what will (continue to) happen as
> we lose our constitutional protection from the majority.
Wait... are you actually arguing that the Democrats are trying to take
away civil liberties?
Where have you *been* for the last decade? Our civil liberties have
already been shredded, and Obama is trying to give something back to us.
I say, let him. UHC is a much more worthy expense than, say,
someone's pet war half the world away (plus, it has the added bonus of
increasing quality of life, which has a corresponding effect on
productivity, in the end benefiting our economy).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:42:30 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 22:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So I'm confused, because you wrote back to Shay and said you never
>> denied that he said his goal was to have single payer. Or are you
>> highlighting that he's stated both?
>
> Yes.
Now it makes sense. :-)
> He's a politician, after all. When it's convenient, he said he
was for
> it. When it's convenient, he dismisses it as a fantasy (not his words,
> but pretty much says it's impossible to achieve).
>
> I'm not going to assume one of his statements as truth and the
other as
> false. Both are suspect.
>
> He has a history of doing this all along. Pre-Senator Obama was a
very
> different person (in rhetoric) than Senator Obama, and slightly
> different as President. He says what he has to to get votes, and has
> done a 180 degree turn on quite a few issues.
Well, and I think all politicians (even the long-time ones) get a good
idea and then when they see what it'll take, they have an "oh crap"
moment, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/27/09 23:00, Chambers wrote:
> To use your lifeboat analogy:
> We are currently in a lifeboat built for 6 people. There are 4 people
> who can't get in the lifeboat because its full.
> The Federal Government wants to build a bigger lifeboat, so we can hold
> those 4 people. This will cost everyone involved a small sum.
> The private insurance companies, who build lifeboats for a living, don't
> want the Government to build a lifeboat. They want to wait for those 4
> people to be able to afford another lifeboat on their own, else just let
> them drown.
Yes, but it's in the interest of the people who build lifeboats to
artificially restrict the size of the lifeboats, and inflate prices.
--
Is Disney World the only people trap operated by a mouse?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
