crickets?
Maybe there are no supporters of ObamaCare?
I could answer some of those though. It's funny because some of the opponents to ObamaCare can probably also answer too.
Those are some of the 10 stupidest things I think I've seen anyone write in a long time. If I have the time, I'll craft a response. But a little basic research could refute at least 8 out of 10 of them.
Those are good questions; is this really true?
Link?Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy.
Please.
Why are the questions stupid? Please elaborate.
Remember - Supergirl believes that food, shelter and healthcare are consitutional rights; so those questions don't make any sense to her.
I'm not sure that the questions themselves are stupid, but the author is definitely pretty uninformed/ignorant/purposely biased. Not to mention that some of these 'questions' are merely his opinions, and fairly easy to debunk with real world examples.
I mean, probably about half of them we discussed already in other threads.
I don't really have the time to go through each one right now, but if I find some time later on, I'll chip in.
Supergirl,
How can healthcare be a right if it can be taken away at the discretion of a bureaucracy?
I think the only people who think those are stupid questions have not familiarized themselves with the truth on this subject matter.
Those are good questions!
I count over twenty questions. And I neither support nor oppose the plan.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 07-29-2009 at 01:21 AM.
I had never seen any such detailed policy or legislation during Bush's administrations. Obama has a strong will to resolve the problems we're facing from the entire economy to health care and insurance, which I appreciate, but it's pretty clear dude hasn't got any effective solution to these illnesses.
We can all have fantasies. I'd be in heaven if I could make mine come true. That's all Obama's words are. Fantasy. No basis in what is real.
Hope and Change... Does not make it happen.
I was going to start writing some answers here, but I actually was sidetracked by reading some of the comments left on this story... here's one that caught my eye (LINK):
DrRythym,
Nice try. Saying something does not make it so. The only healthcare plan scored by the CBO to actually save money over the next decade is the Rep. Pete Stark bill. That would be the single payer bill. In other words, the least expensive plan is the single payer plan. The government plan. The Socialized plan. Of course, we can't even talk about that plan because of people like you who are scared off by words. Good thing we don't talk of Socialized national defense, or people like you would be clamoring for the private sector solution to fighting terrorists. Nothing like the good old days of the Minute Men....
Tell me, why does the greatest healthcare system in the world cost twice as much per person as any other, while delivering results that are no better (and in many cases worse)?
As for your suggestion that private companies are more efficient, again, saying it doesn't make it so. I suspect that you actually understand that "net income" is income after expenses, and expenses include things like the unimaginably high overhead associated with running a profit-based enterprise. And yes, I do believe the government can run the public option more efficiently than a private company, in part because it won't spend tens of millions of dollars seeking ways to rescind policies after the fact, undperpay claims to providers and deny coverage to beneficiaries. Oh, and it won't create any billionaire CEOs either.
Of course, if your argument about the private sector had any merit at all, you wouldn't be so frightened of that "Socialized" plan run by that terribly inefficient government you love to hate. Why on earth would a public option offer plans so attractive that they put the private sector out of business? It can't just be your "subsidy" argument, because we already have ample evidence that consumers of health insurance do not make their decisions solely on price. They consider quality. Simply stated, if the government plan was as horrible as you conservatives like to say, only the poor would stay in it--and that is no way for a public plan to put private plans out of business. So, which is it? Is the public plan so horrible that people won't want to stay, or is it so great and inexpensive that it will put private insurers out of business? Pick one.
On to your use of phony statistics. You claim that 83% of Americans are happy with their insurance. That is questionable, as it assumes that every single person with insurance (no matter how crappy or expensive) is "happy". I doubt that, because I don't think I'm alone in both having insurance and not being "happy" with the coverage. Sure, it is better to have it than not, but the cost, the administrative hassle and the fact that it is tied to a job (which, like any job, can go away) does not make me "happy". But since you are so into statistics, what percentage of the public supports the inclusion of a public plan? The answer to that question begins to address the mandate you think doesn't exist.
Finally, on taxes, your suggestion that I should be pleased that the top 1% pay 40% of MY taxes and that I should be grateful that such people "were able to make something of themselves." I am quite grateful that this country has afforded these people the opportunity to earn so much money and ac ulate so much wealth. Of course, their share of the total wealth is even more out of proportion with their size than their share of taxes, but folks like you always seem to leave that fact out. What I also find interesting is that the way you wrote your section on taxes you appear to assume that a liberal like me, who supports the notion that the top 1.2% should pay a little more (it comes out to about $500 a year for someone making $400,000 a year) to ensure that all Americans have health insurance, is one of those who didn't make something of himself. Sorry to inform you, but I am in that top 1%, and I am quite happy to pay more in taxes to help change the abomination called the U.S. healthcare system.
See, I understand that under the last 8 years I received tens of thousands of dollars of tax cuts that I did not need (of course I "like" the money, who doesn't; but I didn't need it). I have seen my net worth grow dramatically over the last 2 decades, and I know that I face the future with a sense of security and confidence that most Americans simply don't have given the state of our economy.
That's the difference between you and I. I feel blessed by the opportunity this country has given me, and I recognize that it isn't all about me. I am happy to give something back to help make life better for those less fortunate. I don't default to the assumption that if you aren't in the top 1% or 10% it is because YOU failed to make something of yourself (or the reverse, as I know many, many people in my category who did not "make something of themselves" as much as they managed to get born into a family where an ancestor did...).
------------------------
I don't necessarily agree with absolutely all his points, but there's a lot things I certainly share.
I looked. Hard and wide. I couldn't find anything even remotely close to support those claims.
If you find anything, let me know.
I don't know where it comes from, but I've heard it discussed before. The bottom line is that we have extended people's lives through medicine far more than other nations.Our life expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do not count deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the longest life expectancy.
And your reading comprehension is what?
I don't know where it comes from, but I've heard it discussed before.
I would have provided a link if I knew where it came from!
That's basically what your statement looks like without any kind of source to substanciate it.
Ha... ha...
I found a link for different actuarial tables, but to look at them, one needs an account:
The Human Mortality Database
It's a free account, and I just started looking at it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)