How creative - totally ignoring a question.

Let's assume I am an idiot, and I am in a town hall meeting that you are leading, and I present what I presented above, your response would be...?

Got it. What do you think my response would be?


Assuming I have nothing to argue, why not answer the question?

It is a blessing and a curse - bow wow wow yippo yippy yay, nothing but the dog in me, somethimes I wish I did not have such a pit bull mentality - but I have learned to live with it, and I am mostly harmless.

http://zebraisfood.files.wordpress.c...pg?w=365&h=365

You wish!

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Is that a no or a yes to my question?

I will go there now and read it.

I am not interested in trading one failing method of allocating resources for another, my preference is to come up with a better system. Trading one set of bureaucrats who don't care for another is not an improvement.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

I could support a single payer system for base level coverage with private options for supplemental coverage. However, currently Medicare is going broke my fear is that a public option will fail or require some massive rationing of care at some point. I think we need an honest discussion about this, rather than pretending it is not an issue, that it is not a fear and a concern that many people have. You have read it here, we are all victims of lies, we perpetuate the lies, we just think Obama is bad, we are illogical, we are unAmerican, etc, etc, etc - everything rather than addressing the issue.

I can't answer your question. I'm not sure it's an important question. You seem to be concerned about the possibility that a healthcare system might employ an internal system to ensure its own efficiency. Seems odd to me, coming from you.

They've changed it since their ignorance was brought to light.

Every method of allocating resources fails to allocate them perfectly. Furthermore, I have yet to see evidence that the goverment bureaucrats would do worse than the private ones have. In fact, there are certain other countries where it would seem that the government bureaucrats are doing better (that is, if you trust the World Health Organization, which apparently you don't).

No, my question was specific - you take it to mean something that was not in the question. I am concerned about how limited health care resource would be allocated under Obama's plan. I think QALY is subjective, I don't like it and if Obama's plan would employ something similar I could not support his plan.

I am confused by the inability to address a simple concept and a simple question. Why not say, yes. We will employ a method to determine when medical treatment will not be paid for and this is how we would do it? Not being clear, is making people more and more concerned.


Some systems would be more efficient than others. Providing "free" coverage has to be the most inefficient.

The second has to be a system like Obama is saying about preexisting conditions. If I am healthy, I don't buy insurance. If I get diagnosed with prostrate cancer, I buy a policy, get treatment and then cancel the policy. that is what you would get with what Obama talks about.

How about this - Medicare is going broke. Private health insurance companies a) are required by law to maintain adequate reserves and b) they actually do have reserves to meet future needs. The private bureaucrats follow actuary sound practices, government does not. Score 1 for the private sector.

ace---one last point before i leave you to blah blah blah...i responded to your "question" i responded by saying that the premise you used to set it up was circular, so the question itself is without interest.

you missed that part. again.

If anyone wants to contend that Fox News (and it's fellow conservative media platforms) doesn't spin the news, I present you with this:

Video from the Town Hall meeting with Barney Frank (unedited):




And Fox News' coverage. Notice what it leaves out:

Yes, exactly.

Filth: just joining an event already in progress. I'm gone now. Have fun trolling trolls.

I know that I am late to this thread, but I want to bring up a thought about the angry attempts at disrupting the town hall meetings. At first I could not figure out where the angry ones were coming from. Then I realized that comments like "We want our country back" were probably refering to the fact that we have a black president and the angry ones were afraid that their view of the country as being of white people and for white people was being upset. All this had nothing to do with healthcare, but protesters were using this forum to try to arouse opposition to our black president. Does this make sense?

Most do seem to be old white people, but some aren't. They seem to be an accurate cross-section of the Republican party, at least as far as the racial demographics. I suspect it's myriad conservative, evangelical, and social positions that are being seen as "real American" and that now seem to be on the list to be left behind.

I love that Video :)
That woman and articles like this reinforce so many stereotypes a lot of europeans have about americans its not even funny :D

Watching shows like "The Daily Show" is hilarious. It distracts me from the mess that german politics are at the moment :)

I doubt seriously it has anything at all to do with the race of the President. I think with all these bailouts and the hundreds of billions of dollars that seem to flow from Washington in an unlimited fashion and politicians that are out of touch with their constituents is beginning to wear on peoples nerves. I believe this discontent began during the Bush years and the Patriot Acts, wars, etc.. and the change people expected with this last election has become just more of the same. People feel disconnected from their elected officials and the whole government in general. The town halls was just a convenient way for people to vent this discontent.

I guess the next election will tell if it's truly "accurate cross-section of the Republican party". Like the Democratic Party is all that :thumbsup: Neither party truly has the interest of the average American at heart. Elected members of both parties only worry about themselves.

This is shaping up to be Obama's Waterloo ..... he's damned if he does and damned if he don't.

nah, I think he'll pass it and it will be successful enough over the next 2 years that it will be a non-issue by the 2012 election cycle. There was heavy opposition to Social Security and Medicare when they were introduced too....

You dont think the "birther" movement has a racial component?

What are you talking about? The birther movement is based entirely on race.

(Oh, were you being ironic?)

True and FDR had to considerably water down his Social Security Bill to get it passed.

However, over the years, it was ammended something like 70 times to get it where it is now.

If the Health Care Bill passes (which I doubt), it will probably take generations to get it where it needs to be, however, that's the way it will have to go. Hopefully Obama can plant a seed that will grow with time so that 70 or so years from now, Americans have a true Universal Health Care system.

Muddying the waters a bit are we?

He's right that the birther movement seems to be racially motivated. No one ever asked if Bill Clinton was secretly born in England or Sweden. Barack Obama isn't white and has a foreign sounding name, therefore we should have permission to see his original birth certificate? Comon.

Ok lets muddy the waters. We was discussing town hall meetings and "accurate cross-section of the Republican party" not the "birther movement". That's a whole 'nother discussion altogether. Probably 99.9 percent of the discontent people showing up at the town hall meetings really don't care about Obama's race or the "birther movenmemt".

Many of those showing up are birthers, though, so you can't discount them from the discussion completely. And last time I checked, 42% of Republicans believe President Obama is a natural born citizen, 30% don't know, and 28% are absolutely idiots.

HAHA the idea he isn't a naturally born American citizen seems to spread across all the political parties. excerpt from the link you so graciously provided...

sometimes you guys and gals are funny ... :)

*edit* I daresay Will if Obama was a Republican you would be on the "birther" bandwagon also. Heck you was on the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon up until the last election.

When did I say birthers were only Republican? My point was that it's racially motivated. And it really, really is.

Anyway, when you can explain how this:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3210/757.jpg
made this hole:
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-con...tagon-hole.jpg
(in another thread, of course), you then have standing to cite my investigation as folly.

So now your flip flopping back and saying there was a government 9/11 conspiracy? Because it wasn't to long ago I was sure you had decided that the government didn't have anything to do with it at all?

I'm saying that there was ample reason for me to be asking questions, not that there is a vast government conspiracy. One clue does not a conspiracy make. Anyway, there are no clues that would suggest there's anything at all funny about President Obama's birth certificate, so I would imagine that if President Obama was a Republican, I would not in fact be a part of the birther movement. This is especially true because the movement is racially motivated and I am not racist.

Alrighty then!!! :thumbsup:

Roach,

Your responses simply continue to illustrate a level of intellectual cowardice that leads me to conclude there is not much substance in the words you share with me.

That has not been missed.

---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 PM ----------

Does Hannity make the claim that he is neutral? How can anyone watch his show and not realize his "spin"? Isn't there a difference between a "news" show and a "news talk show"? Are you implying that the Fox News channel is the only one that has "spin" on some of its shows?

No, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, et al do NOT come right out and say they are biased or spinning the news, that's the problem. People watch their shows and think they're getting the straight story and are accepting what is being presented as fact. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, is clearly presenting a comedy show, and I don't think Olbermann or Maddow are hiding their own biases.

There is no "birther" movement. Certainly we can find people who actively promote the pursuit of this issue, but to call it a movement?!? Just because liberal talk shows had a few slow news days and filled it up with a few angry people and an ambush video, does not make a movement. Then you have the ..."well this person or that person did not denounce this enough or to our liking so therefore...", gee. And now we have people saying by implication that anyone against Obama is a racist. What is that all about?

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

I watch MSNBC to get a different perspective from my views. I am a grown up. I know when I am listening to someone with an agenda, don't you? Why do you assume others can not?

They have a website: the Birthers

Oh, I guess that makes it official. Get a website and become a movement. Got it.

You talk about this as if a "movement" needed to be certified by someone. Let's see, how do we describe a group of people who coordinate events, websites and material requesting for a specific action from a public official?

Can you define "movement" in the political context? This may be a semantic disagreement.

Is there a "bigfoot" movement?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=2693244

Perhaps, my problem is having too high a standard for a "movement".

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

It clearly is. I think something becomes a (political) movement only after a group of people actually have enough power to change the political dynamics of an issue. For example our historic equal civil rights quest, did not become a movement until about the early 1900's. I would argue the birth of the NAACP was the birth of the "movement. There was a much sharper focus and ability to affect change after the formation of the NAACP, a clear moment of demarcation in my opinion.

posting their website was halfway facetious, but they do have a "leader" (Orly Taitz) and some US legislators support. I don't know what else you think they need to be a "movement". Their efforts won't be successful, but that doesn't make their organization of people and resources any less real

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

So is Pro Life not a movement because they haven't had the political power to change the issue?

I actually choose my words carefully. I said "change the political dynamics" of an issue. "Birthers" are out there just like there are people who have been "anally probed by aliens" , neither group has any impact on the political dynamics of any debate on any subject. However, people like "right to life", or even people who want to "save the whales" do affect political dynamics.

According to polling, 39% of Republicans are birthers. If about 39% of all adults are Republican (that's the best figure I could find), and there are about 200 million adults in the US, that means that there are about 30 million birthers, or 1 in every 10 Americans.

As for political impact, ask yourself why there are congressmen and senators standing up for these morons.

Are they trying to achieve any political goals?

Various surveys will show different numbers, but this one shows almost 90% of blacks favor reparations for slavery. I bet most of these people who say yes are pretty casual about it, but a much smaller number are passionate about it. the issue of reparations is in the news, but hardly a movement. By comparison I would say reparations is much closer to a "movement" than "birthers". The survey results you cite don't make me put "birthers" in the "movement" category.

Survey Shows Most Blacks Favor Slavery Reparations - NAM

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

Yes, however the believers are a splintered group. If you talk to some, they have a goal of uncovering this and some other perceived cover ups by the government.

It is interesting but if you took the above sentence out of context, it could apply to almost any fringe group, including "birthers". I think the ambiguity in their message is one reason I would not consider fringe groups with all kinds of out of the mainstream ideas something less than a "movement".

You know, I cannot really believe I am actually debating this with you folks - keep on believing "birthers" are a serious threat to Obama, just back off of calling people racists.

No one really believes they are a serious threat to Obama, but I think it is absurd to deny the racial aspect of this whole made up controversy.

What in your view makes it racist? Oh, never mind - I get it - Obama is half black, so any "movement" against him is racism.

Hey, did you hear the Feds are increasing the deficit projection to $9 trillion. Those "birthers" - are they changing the political dynamics of that issue? And, before you respond with it - I was against the deficits under Bush too, the only difference is that the deficits under Bush were within historical norms in terms of % of GDP.

{added} Were the vast right wing conspiracy "movement"s against Bill Clinton racism too? By some he was considered our first "black" President. Or, could it be conservatives, of all kinds, just don't like liberals?

{added}.......... News flash......News Flash......"Birthers" don't think Arnold Schwarzenegger qualifies to be President. They clearly have a bias against former steroid users, according to Obama supporters........

{added}..........News Flash,,,,,News Flash,,,,,"Birthers are at it again, claiming Henry Keissinger does not qualify to be President. This is clearly antisemitism according to Obama supporters.........

Are you really this dense or are you just trolling at this point?

What the fuck do the deficits or any other problem with the Obama administration have to do with the "birther" made up controversy?

Who said anything about any movement against Obama being racist?

Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the whole birth certificate "controversy" is racially motivated.