12-13-2009, 12:20 AM | #41 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
What are we computing to come up with the data? I think numbers are cooked to prove a point. If and only if, we spend more, it's more likely due to our sickness approach to life. WE eat horrifically. Only a small percentage of our citizens exercise properly. We do not engage in health planning. So when we eat ourselves into obesity, refuse to exercise, smoke and drink like morons, drive crazily on the roads, have one of the higher murder rates in the industrialized, modern world, our health care costs will necessarily be extraordinarily high. If we had healthy lifestyles, I doubt we'd be any different than those cultures engaging in less dangerous lifestyles. Of course, politicians do not wish to castigate the voters. Great one, Cali, blame the sickness and costs of sickness on the caretakers, not on the ones in control of their own health.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
12-13-2009, 11:42 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
"Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will cost them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July 2009). Fewer than one in four people -- 23 percent -- currently think the plan will save them money." Quote:
And then Dick Durbin admits this weekend that even he doesn't know the details of what's in the bill. The #2 guy in the Democrat leadership says he's "in the dark," and yet we're trying to ram this through the Senate in record time? What a joke. It's truly curious why Obama has made this his Gettysburg. That same Fox poll (cited above) asked Americans what issue ranked highest on their national to-do list, and "Health Care" came in 3rd place with 10%. I can only see lose-lose for Obama in this in the short term: either it doesn't pass, which will be a devastating commentary on his political power; or it passes, with high levels of disapproval in the country and becomes a thorn for 2010. It's possible this pays off in the long term by paving the way to socialized medicine. Presumably Obama and Co think that's worth the short-term hit.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
12-13-2009, 11:50 PM | #43 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
There is no GOP David Cameron however.
NASCAR Bible-thumpers have taken over the GOP. So there isn't anyone to counter the Obama crowd. |
12-14-2009, 01:22 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
First, again- why is your poll relevant here? The question you asked (and then highlighted in bold, I guess to help you remember the question), is whether people are more opposed to health care the more they learn about it. To support your contention that they are more opposed as they become more knowledgeable, you give us a poll that says that most people are opposed to the bill. You do realize, don't you, that such information doesn't actually say anything about your argument? You then get really excited about the CMS report on the Senate bill. Yes, CMS does project that the bill will perform worse than the CBO projects, and certainly they should be heard out. That said, even under the CMS report, the bill performs very well. A total projected increase of $234 billion through 2019 (which represents an increase from 20.8% GDP to 20.9% GDP) isn't fantastic, but you neglect to mention the proposed bill also covers more than 33 million people who are currently uninsured (according to CMS). Not to mention cost controls are proposed to be changed even more (in the language Reid sent to the CBO for scoring). Durbin didn't say he "doesn't know what is in the bill." The language he was discussing isn't in the bill. It is in a proposal that Reid sent to CBO for scoring. It won't be part of the bill until everyone sees it. Reid doesn't want people to jump all over a proposal (or wed themselves to it) if it won't actually reduce costs (a responsible position). Durbin doesn't know the language now, but to say people won't know it well before they vote on it, or that people don't know it now because Dems are "ramming the legislation through too fast" is a total fabrication (unsurprisingly). |
|
12-14-2009, 02:12 PM | #45 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
12-14-2009, 02:34 PM | #46 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
My prediction of any bill that actually passes. It will cost more than predicted, much more. I wager it costs 500 to 750 billion more than originally predicted. It will cover fewer persons. And Cali will blame the Republicans or return to the refrain, "at least we tried." What's missing, Cali refused to address the point that our health care costs might be high because we're a sick, slovenly and lazy population which ignores its health.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 12-14-2009 at 02:44 PM. |
|
12-14-2009, 06:19 PM | #47 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, it isn't splitting hairs. It is destroying your point. |
||
12-14-2009, 06:20 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
12-14-2009, 06:32 PM | #49 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
We don't know enough about the numbers. Perhaps we spend more than is optimal because we are lazy, fat-ass slobs and we're looking for somebody else to pay for our lousy lifestyles. There is plenty of data to suggest we eat poorly, we exercise inadequately and are ill-informed in health care decisions. Is that a fault of our health care delivery system? You're advocate, a Democratic pundit and shill. I get that. However, I wish one could actually discuss something with you. Nobody's going to question your Democratic credentials or your belief in Obama if you take the time actually examine the numbers. I will grant you this, we spend a lot of money on a lot of items, including health care. Is it excessive? I dunno, because people make quick conclusions when they see a big number.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
12-14-2009, 07:34 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
The CMS report says the bill is going to cost more money, contrary to what we've been told. That's the bottom line. $234B may be chump change to you when Obama is forking out trillions of dollars to anybody who asks, but it still matters to the remaining handful of fiscally sane Americans. And that's not to mention the prediction of insolvent hospitals and nursing care facilities. Bill Nelson, for example, isn't so flippant: the report is giving him and a few others pause. Maybe you should shoot him an email with some of your brilliant commentary about why it doesn't matter. Aside from addressing a few of your tangents, my only point in this thread has been how unbelievably unpopular this bill is, which is the point you haven't dealt with (to say nothing of "destroying"... heh). For some reason you seem to think that confusion about the bill's details somehow mitigates the public's intense distaste for it.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|