Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:33 am

Still researching that. (already noted that Google, Bing, etc are not great for presenting boring, but legitimate, scientific data -- you get plenty of garbage, but little real).

Anyway, came on this gem to muddy the water further, from the JAMA
link: http://www.mendeley.com/research/who-re ... nsibility/
(this is just the abstrat, I cannot access the full article)
WHEN ASKED WHO PAYS FOR HEALTH CARE IN THE United States, the usual answer is "employers, government, and individuals." Most Americans believe that employers pay the bulk of workers' premiums and that governments pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other programs. However, this is incorrect. Employers do not bear the cost of employment-based insurance; workers and households pay for health insurance through lower wages and higher prices. Moreover, government has no source of funds other than taxes or borrowing to pay for health care. Failure to understand that individuals and households actually foot the entire health care bill perpetuates the idea that people can get great health benefits paid for by someone else. It leads to perverse and counterproductive ideas regarding health care reform.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:49 am

Here, from Dollars & Sense, Real World Economics
Paying more, getting less:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives ... rison.html

here are the first three paragraphs. (coloration added to emphasize a key point) The article is a bit long to post, but very readable:
By any measure, the United States spends an enormous amount of money on health care. Here are a few of those measures. In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16% of the nation’s GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9%, France 10.7%, Germany 10.9%, Sweden 9.1%, and the United Kingdom 8.7%. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560.

By now the high overall cost of health care in the United States is broadly recognized. And many Americans are acutely aware of how much they pay for their own care. Those without health insurance face sky-high doctor and hospital bills and ever more aggressive collection tactics—when they receive care at all. Those who are fortunate enough to have insurance experience steep annual premium hikes along with rising deductibles and co-pays, and, all too often, a well-founded fear of losing their coverage should they lose a job or have a serious illness in the family.

Still, Americans may well underestimate the degree to which they subsidize the current U.S. health care system out of their own pockets. And almost no one recognizes that even people without health insurance pay substantial sums into the system today. If more people understood the full size of the health care bill that they as individuals are already paying—and for a system that provides seriously inadequate care to millions of Americans—then the corporate opponents of a universal single-payer system might find it far more difficult to frighten the public about the costs of that system. In other words, to recognize the advantages of a single-payer system, we have to understand how the United States funds health care and health research and how much it actually costs us today.

Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:08 am

Oh, yes, and let's not forget the impact of bankruptcy:
http://news.health.com/2009/06/04/medic ... kruptcies/

first 2 paragraphs:
THURSDAY, June 4, 2009 (Health.com) — This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60% of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50% in a six-year period, from 46% in 2001 to 62% in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Repealed/Pressure Building in Se

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:16 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Again, you go with a Poison the Well, which I counter, but then you dodge with a "HAH, YOU DON"T KNOW THE FACTS, JACK!" and what's even funnier is that you don't provide any sources!

SAUCE PLEASE! SHOW ME THE SAUCE!

I don't often cite sources because you can find things that seem to support any opinion on the internet and I find that most people here are not willing to do the research necessary to find out if the sources they post are I post are valid.

From the outset, if insurers were actually covering people, then they would not be objecting so strongly to the new requirements, would not be dropping policies, etc. Beyond that I told you to read your own insurance policy and think seriously about all the exclusions. If that is not enough, I and many others have posted multiple links within this thread to testimonies, verified data, etc (i.e. real proof) that show insurers drop people, etc. I have also talked extensively about what is happening in my town.

I don't mind real debates, but when you want to go off with opinions that make it clear you know NOTHING about the issues... note, I disagree with Phattscotty, but he at least does look into the situations, just from only one side of the situation. You have not even done that.


That reminds me of saxitoxin's quote of you sourcing those professors you had from years ago!


Trouble is, you seem to think that is less valid than just picking some random internet sight. My professors had to be published, each were published in peer-reviewed journals multiple times as well as leading multiple studies by graduates.

Lionz tried to play this game with me in the young earth thread. He pulled up all sorts of "sources". I traced several of the articles back to their roots and got ...absolute garbage. MY sources, to contrast, were all, (eventually.. I started with the easy to read stuff) backed by verified research published in peer-reviewed journals. In a few cases, I was stymied by lack of access to the actual articles, but I never got a true dead end to nonsense.

You can laugh all you want, but unless you take the time to actually understand where your data comes from, you are nothing more than a parrot for other people's ideas.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:58 am

...

Subsidizing health care doesn't mean they're subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D. Where do you come up with this?

Giving government grants for R&D is completely fine with me. It's money better spent than on building roads, bridges, F-22s, and all sorts of unnecessary projects. It's innovation that matters.

NOTE: None of your sources really say how much the government gives in grants, yet you say MOST...

Patents? Well, intellectual property rights is another issue.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:09 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:...

Subsidizing health care doesn't mean they're subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D. Where do you come up with this?
read a bit further....

BigBallinStalin wrote:Giving government grants for R&D is completely fine with me. It's money better spent than on building roads, bridges, F-22s, and all sorts of unnecessary projects. It's innovation that matters.
The point is that
if the government already subsidizes most medical research, moving to more government insurance is hardly going to stifle development.

BigBallinStalin wrote:NOTE: None of your sources really say how much the government gives in grants, yet you say MOST...

Patents? Well, intellectual property rights is another issue.

:roll:
Fine, I guess doing a little bit more research is just too difficult for you. I already noted that it took me 3 pages of looking through links (with the question "who pays for medical research") and those are the best I got. When the search engines are so biased and generally poor, its no wonder so many of you find it is just "too much effort" to actually track down real data.

I will do it for you. But, it will have to wait. I may seem to be online constantly, because I keep my computer up, but I come and go.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:17 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:...

Subsidizing health care doesn't mean they're subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D. Where do you come up with this?
read a bit further....

BigBallinStalin wrote:Giving government grants for R&D is completely fine with me. It's money better spent than on building roads, bridges, F-22s, and all sorts of unnecessary projects. It's innovation that matters.
The point is that
if the government already subsidizes most medical research, moving to more government insurance is hardly going to stifle development.

BigBallinStalin wrote:NOTE: None of your sources really say how much the government gives in grants, yet you say MOST...

Patents? Well, intellectual property rights is another issue.

:roll:
Fine, I guess doing a little bit more research is just too difficult for you. I already noted that it took me 3 pages of looking through links (with the question "who pays for medical research") and those are the best I got. When the search engines are so biased and generally poor, its no wonder so many of you find it is just "too much effort" to actually track down real data.

I will do it for you. But, it will have to wait. I may seem to be online constantly, because I keep my computer up, but I come and go.


Instead of spending time on an internet forum talking to people who don't know how businesses or economics works, I could just spend that time talking to highly educated people who specialize in the fields related to the subject matter.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:18 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:...

Subsidizing health care doesn't mean they're subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D. Where do you come up with this?
read a bit further....

BigBallinStalin wrote:Giving government grants for R&D is completely fine with me. It's money better spent than on building roads, bridges, F-22s, and all sorts of unnecessary projects. It's innovation that matters.
The point is that
if the government already subsidizes most medical research, moving to more government insurance is hardly going to stifle development.

BigBallinStalin wrote:NOTE: None of your sources really say how much the government gives in grants, yet you say MOST...

Patents? Well, intellectual property rights is another issue.

:roll:
Fine, I guess doing a little bit more research is just too difficult for you. I already noted that it took me 3 pages of looking through links (with the question "who pays for medical research") and those are the best I got. When the search engines are so biased and generally poor, its no wonder so many of you find it is just "too much effort" to actually track down real data.

I will do it for you. But, it will have to wait. I may seem to be online constantly, because I keep my computer up, but I come and go.


Instead of spending time on an internet forum talking to people who don't know how businesses or economics works, I could just spend that time talking to highly educated people who specialize in the fields related to the subject matter.


chalk it up to diversity
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby karel on Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:25 pm

yep jon boehner #-o i mean hitler will f*ck all that up for sure.....What a fucking idiot
he and his goons are so smart :roll:
Corporal 1st Class karel
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: montana........rolling in the mud with the hippies

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:16 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Instead of spending time on an internet forum talking to people who don't know how businesses or economics works, I could just spend that time talking to highly educated people who specialize in the fields related to the subject matter.

I see, so you think understanding or finding out what taxpayers pay toward medical research requires an economics degree?

INTERESTING!

See, I tend to think that information is our right to know. And, well, if it comes to understanding facts and figures, a good statistics and sampling background ought to suffice, perhaps better than an economics degree.

Economics deals with the impact of this information. Statistics, sampling ... they deal with the accuracy of the data itself.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: House to Block Funding

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:31 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Instead of spending time on an internet forum talking to people who don't know how businesses or economics works, I could just spend that time talking to highly educated people who specialize in the fields related to the subject matter.

I see, so you think understanding or finding out what taxpayers pay toward medical research requires an economics degree?

INTERESTING!

See, I tend to think that information is our right to know. And, well, if it comes to understanding facts and figures, a good statistics and sampling background ought to suffice, perhaps better than an economics degree.

Economics deals with the impact of this information. Statistics, sampling ... they deal with the accuracy of the data itself.


0/10
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:09 am

Yes, still waiting for all your data you seem to think refutes what I have said.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:17 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, still waiting for all your data you seem to think refutes what I have said.


presenting data to you is just a waste of time. Seriously, like it's going to change your mind, or get you to admit you were wrong (if you were, and you can't always be right). You will just change the subject.

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby GreecePwns on Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:39 pm

presenting data to you is just a waste of time. Seriously, like it's going to change your mind, or get you to admit you were wrong (if you were, and you can't always be right). You will just change the subject.


Is this an autobiography or something?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:48 pm

GreecePwns wrote:
presenting data to you is just a waste of time. Seriously, like it's going to change your mind, or get you to admit you were wrong (if you were, and you can't always be right). You will just change the subject.


Is this an autobiography or something?


no, it's how I respond to the CC forum repeat champion of the category "least likely to concede a point" which is Player.

Nice try though
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:11 am

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
presenting data to you is just a waste of time. Seriously, like it's going to change your mind, or get you to admit you were wrong (if you were, and you can't always be right). You will just change the subject.


Is this an autobiography or something?


no, it's how I respond to the CC forum repeat champion of the category "least likely to concede a point" which is Player.

Nice try though

Not agreeing with YOU isnt the same as "never conceding". You dissappear any time someone provides you with real data...or simply ignore it.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:44 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:
presenting data to you is just a waste of time. Seriously, like it's going to change your mind, or get you to admit you were wrong (if you were, and you can't always be right). You will just change the subject.


Is this an autobiography or something?


no, it's how I respond to the CC forum repeat champion of the category "least likely to concede a point" which is Player.

Nice try though

Not agreeing with YOU isnt the same as "never conceding". You dissappear any time someone provides you with real data...or simply ignore it.


Player, it happens over and over again. Take the "Egypt uprising was extremely peaceful" bit... you just change the subject or disappear.

I have conceded many points. What you say is a lie.

Let's stay current though.... Walker's text was presented, and I asked you what you thought now....what do you think?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=138300&start=270
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socailized Healthcare

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:08 pm

Scotty, I can personally point to several threads where, on several issues, you have been forced to do the same or in other cases simply didn't reply. Especially on this issue. So if you have info, present it. Don't use this as a cop-out for a lack of it.

You once again called this socialized healthcare yet have no way to prove it is.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Socailized Healthcare

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:51 pm

GreecePwns wrote:Scotty, I can personally point to several threads where, on several issues, you have been forced to do the same or in other cases simply didn't reply. Especially on this issue. So if you have info, present it. Don't use this as a cop-out for a lack of it.

You once again called this socialized healthcare yet have no way to prove it is.


Please point me to them. A few always fall through the cracks. I will respond to all of them.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:56 pm

Phatscotty wrote: Player, it happens over and over again. Take the "Egypt uprising was extremely peaceful" bit... you just change the subject or disappear.

Good example. It WAS a peaceful uprising. You, however seem unable to understand the distinction between a revolution and a casual day with the kids in the park.

Just like you refuse to accept that medical insurance is one thing that plain does not work best in a for-profit system. A for profit system can accentuate the basic system, but as long as profits drive insurance, and particularly as long as employers provide insurance coverage, we will not have either affordable insurace or affordable health care.

You also fail to get that those are 2 utterly different concept.. health insurance is not the same as health care.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socailized Healthcare

Postby Woodruff on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:58 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Scotty, I can personally point to several threads where, on several issues, you have been forced to do the same or in other cases simply didn't reply. Especially on this issue. So if you have info, present it. Don't use this as a cop-out for a lack of it.

You once again called this socialized healthcare yet have no way to prove it is.


Please point me to them. A few always fall through the cracks. I will respond to all of them.


Yes, point to all of those places where Scotty just didn't respond. Those should be easy to pull up on a search, right? <rolling eyes>
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare: Funding Blocked, Going to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:05 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: Player, it happens over and over again. Take the "Egypt uprising was extremely peaceful" bit... you just change the subject or disappear.

Good example. It WAS a peaceful uprising. You, however seem unable to understand the distinction between a revolution and a casual day with the kids in the park.

Just like you refuse to accept that medical insurance is one thing that plain does not work best in a for-profit system. A for profit system can accentuate the basic system, but as long as profits drive insurance, and particularly as long as employers provide insurance coverage, we will not have either affordable insurace or affordable health care.

You also fail to get that those are 2 utterly different concept.. health insurance is not the same as health care.


Actually, I've never even commented on the issue of medical insurance and how it works in a for profit system.

I just have a problem getting into you perspective, since, in my state, there is no such thing as an insurer that operates for a profit. Only non-profits can provide insurance here.

Saying that I don't understand the difference between health care and health insurance actually says more about you than it does me.
I understand the difference :lol:
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socailized Healthcare

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:18 pm

Upthread at various points.

One time I put a chart showing how other countries spending as a % of GDP and made the assertion that a fully public health system would be cheaper. Your response? Something to the extent that, because I'm Greek and Greece's economic condition isn't good, my point was invalid. Nice.

After tossing you aside on that subject which was totally unrelated, there was no response.

And that's not the first time you resorted to the Greek defense.
Last edited by GreecePwns on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Overturning ObamaCare: Nov 2nd

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:24 pm

GreecePwns wrote:A lot of things have to happen before this government even begins to resemble one of the people. The first is proportional representation, which is already a pipe dream but something I'm sure you would agree too. Another thing I would add as an electoral reform measure is preferential voting where you mark first choice, second choice, etc (I'm not sure what the technical name is for it). One would assume this would lead to less attacking in campaigns and more presentation of ideas. Going further, I would say full public financing of campaigns takes money out of the question in elections and makes politicians more accountable for what they say since their opinions are not tied down by the donations of others.

We'll start with taxation. A more progressive tax system would lower taxes for the poor and middle class, which would be good for the economy since these people spend a much higher percentage of their money than they do save it. Raising taxes on the rich, who tend to have money just sitting there accumulating and not contributing to the economy, would help the government balance the budget. History has shown us that cutting taxes and spending creates large income disparities and shrinks the middle class. These two effect are near perfect indicators of an oncoming recession or depression.

Even though Social Security as it stands is stable for at least the next 25 years, it can do better. Currently, a cap on Social Security taxes is essentially saying the poor should help aid the poor. Extending Social Security taxes to all Americans would not only increase the profits Social Security is making - which could then be passed on to the taxpayers, something you would support - it would free up the $2.5 trillion dollar trust fund we have in the program, which could serve the same purpose. Heck, with that sweet deal we could even afford to lower the retirement age.

People can come on here and talk about government takeovers or what have you, but the fact is that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. I really strongly suggest, if you really want to hear the jist of this argument, you should see the arugment made by my congressional hero Anthony Weiner on the subject which left (admittedly a punching bag) Fox and Friends contradicting themselves, Joe Scarborough "speechless", Keith Varney absolutely FOOLISH (and once again yelling socialist, a point he was proven wrong on as well), Neil Cavuto asking why he didn't run for New York City Mayor, among other examples.

...

Medicare requires a 1 to 4 percent overhead, while private companies often take 30 percent of overhead and profits. Just by this fact alone, one can state with certainty that public insurance lowers costs to the consumer since the company isn't in it for the profit. Extending Medicare to all Americans may take away your "choice" of to have insurance or not or to have private insurance or not. But when your choice is a clear drain on the nation's economy as a whole, whether it is through going to taxpayer funded emergency rooms for care or having a company pocket the profits which would alternatively be passed entirely on to taxpayers, you shouldn't really have that choice. I could extend this argument to the government-approved local energy monopolies and oil companies and banks too (and a communist would extend it to anything really), but let's stay on topic.

And simply put, end the warfare. Shut down our international military bases. This is something you and I can agree is wasteful I would hope.

Another simply put argument, legalize marijuana. Increasing the tax base can lower taxes from other areas, like the middle class.

The point is this: you can't cut your way out of this problem. These measures alone would produce government profits (which would tackle the growing deficits in this nation), use excess revenues to lower taxes or the national debt, and get our nation focusing on the myriad of social issues in our nation. If that's not what you want in the first place, then I don't know what to tell you.

And this. The only response this got from any of the conservatives was well..from saxi. Which was about the fact that Anthony Weiner was pro-Israel.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Socailized Healthcare

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:42 pm

Yeah, I knew you were talking about this. I replied...

"Then send your plan to the New York Times and Harry Reid, John Boehner, and Barack Obama"
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl