Senate Health Care Bill Unveiled - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 11-20-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I remember you!

You're the one, with no direct experience with SCHIPs, insisted that it is too complicated, inefficient with disincentives to work...blah blah blah.

but have a healthy day

The reason the same points get repeated is because they get ignored. As usual direct your comments to the individual and not the issue.

The bottom line is that SCHIP is inadequate in many ways and we all know it.

ratbastid · 11-20-2009, 10:08 AM

"Some say that SCHIP is inadequate." --Fox News

aceventura3 · 11-20-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

"Some say that SCHIP is inadequate." --Fox News

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

Derwood · 11-20-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

dksuddeth · 11-20-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

Derwood · 11-20-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

depends on how you define inadequate, doesn't it? I could say that Program X is inadequate because it was funded to help 3,000,000 people but is only helping 2,000,000. The program is inefficient, but isn't helping 2,000,000 people better than helping no one?

dksuddeth · 11-20-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

depends on how you define inadequate, doesn't it? I could say that Program X is inadequate because it was funded to help 3,000,000 people but is only helping 2,000,000. The program is inefficient, but isn't helping 2,000,000 people better than helping no one?

you can define inadequate that way if you like, but when you want to use an altered definition, inform us first. In your given example, it's not known whether the PROGRAM is inadequate, but we can ascertain that the FUNDING is.

dc_dux · 11-20-2009, 01:26 PM

Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate.

The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s.

Inadequate? Inefficient?

Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids.

And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis.

Rekna · 11-20-2009, 01:38 PM

Everything in the world is inadequate and inefficient. Does that mean we should stop doing everything?

The process of converting energy in to light is inefficient as it produces heat, we should get rid of all lights!

The process of converting gas/oil/coal/etc into energy is inefficient, i guess we should top burning any fossil fuels.

Nearly everything can be done better but that doesn't mean we should just stop what we are doing....

guy44 · 11-20-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

inadequate is always worse than no program at all. It wastes money that could be better spent on other things while you work out a adequate program.

Uh, no. Not even close. As Voltaire wrote, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You cannot let the desire for perfection stop you from achieving the good.

ratbastid · 11-20-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I went to a state school - please explain.

From my point of view if something is inadequate it is inadequate and it does not matter who says it if it is true.

So they didn't teach you the difference between "point of view" and "the way something is" at your state school. That explains so god damn much.

I'm not talking about SCHIP and its inadequacy or not. I'm talking about the incessant collapse of objective and subjective, over there in your postings. I'm talking about your blinkered insistence that how you see it is how it is.

dc_dux · 11-20-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

So they didn't teach you the difference between "point of view" and "the way something is" at your state school. That explains so god damn much.

I'm not talking about SCHIP and its inadequacy or not. I'm talking about the incessant collapse of objective and subjective, over there in your postings. I'm talking about your blinkered insistence that how you see it is how it is.

I think it was the Fox/Investors Business Daily school of public policy. Inscribed over the entrance to the school "fair and balanced" library:

"Facts cited by Democrats or liberals are baseless opinions...and the opinions (eg IBD) of Republicans and Conservatives are facts!"

Of course, ace aced that course!

aceventura3 · 11-21-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

in your opinion, is an "inadequate" SCHIP program better or worse than no SCHIP program at all?

Depends on the alternative.

With SCHIP the things that make it inadequate can easily be fixed. I think it is immoral for a community not to take care of the children in that community. To the degree the SCHIP leads people to believe that we as a community are doing the right thing while millions of children, hidden in the shadows, go without health care in my view makes the inadequacies in SCHIP worse than if there was no SCHIP. Put another way, if "covering up" a problem is not a solution and if "covering up" that problem means we don't address the problem, the "covering up" of the problem makes things worse.

In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate.

The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s.

Inadequate? Inefficient?

Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids.

And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis.

I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate.

But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.

rahl · 11-21-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Depends on the alternative.

With SCHIP the things that make it inadequate can easily be fixed. I think it is immoral for a community not to take care of the children in that community. To the degree the SCHIP leads people to believe that we as a community are doing the right thing while millions of children, hidden in the shadows, go without health care in my view makes the inadequacies in SCHIP worse than if there was no SCHIP. Put another way, if "covering up" a problem is not a solution and if "covering up" that problem means we don't address the problem, the "covering up" of the problem makes things worse.

In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate.

But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.

So by your logic if you can't fix something 100% then you shouldn't fix it at all? You do realise that nothing can be 100% percent where humans are concerned right?

dc_dux · 11-21-2009, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I love this kind of logic. Actually I don't, but it makes me smile. An analogy - my son comes home from school and announces he got 90 questions correct on his math test. Before I uncork the champagne, I would have to ask how many questions were on the test, if the reply is 200, oh I say - me thinks your performance was inadequate.

But that's just me. I guess some would say, getting 90 correct was better than getting 80 correct, which is true, but doesn't make the 90 out of 200 look any better to me.

I love your bizarre analogy.

A program that has an enrollment rate of over 80% (of eligible families) and a participation rate of over 75% is somehow comparable to getting a failing grade - 45% (90 out of 200) on a test score.

WTF kind of logic is that?

Quote:

In addition two of the problems with SCHIP are the disincentive created, perpetuating poverty and the dehumanization people are put through hurting their confidence and ability to do better on their own. I could argue these factors make things worse with SCHIP.

It is equally bizzare to suggest that one would turn down a higher paying job that offered employer-based (and employer-subsidized) health benefits in order to remain eligible for SCHIP.

WTF again?

Marvelous Marv · 11-21-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

I'll take a crack

Best. Post. EVER. On this site, at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Dunedan are all people who make 133% or less than the federal poverty line drug dealers and meth heads? Are a majority of them? Is there a sizable group of people who make 133% or less that are honest and hard working but just don't have good jobs?

The people you are describing are breaking the law and should be put in jail. However, why should we punish everyone for a few bad apples? If you know your neighbors are selling drugs why don't you send in some anonymous tips and get them out of your neighborhood?

Wait, why did you bring arguments against gun control into this thread? Everyone knows that when a few people misbehave, you must infringe the constitutional right of all citizens!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so your actual agenda is to turn the people of America in to tax revenue generators for a nanny state to take care of everybody. why should I comply with that?

i will not comply, nor will I pay a fine........ever. who's going to come and make me?

There has already been a discussion of how much jail time to give those who don't pay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I remember you!

You're the one, with no direct experience with SCHIPs, insisted that it is too complicated, inefficient with disincentives to work...blah blah blah.

ace....you're a broken record and I am just not interested in hearing you go round and round with the same old crap.

but have a healthy day

How presidential of you. He doesn't care to listen to anyone's opinion but his own, either.

dc_dux · 11-21-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

He doesn't care to listen to anyone's opinion but his own, either.

I know that...ace has made it quite clear that he doesnt care what other's opinions are...only that they are wrong and his are right.

aceventura3 · 11-23-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

So by your logic if you can't fix something 100% then you shouldn't fix it at all?

I don't pretend thing are what they are not. If I "fix" something and it is a bad fix or a temporary fix, I keep working on it until I get it done properly, don't you?

Quote:

You do realise that nothing can be 100% percent where humans are concerned right?

I used the term "inadequate" for a reason. If you take the time to try to understand my point perhaps you will find that you actually agree with me. Elderly people in MediCare all have the same requirments for eligibility and it is simple:

Quote:

* Must be at least 65 or disabled to qualify
* Must be a legal resident or citizen
* Either you or your spouse must have worked in Medicare-covered employment for at least 10 years.

medicarequalifications

Eligibility for SCHIP should be:

*Must be under 18 years old.

From there I would design coverage around preventive, routine, and emergency/catastrophic care.

The current program is inadequate and should not depend on a child's address their parents income or their parents ability or willingness to complete paper work. Being under 18 in this country should allow you to receive the medical care needed

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I love your bizarre analogy.

A program that has an enrollment rate of over 80% (of eligible families) and a participation rate of over 75% is somehow comparable to getting a failing grade - 45% (90 out of 200) on a test score.

WTF kind of logic is that?

It is a question of standards. I agree that a person who has low standards may not understand the person or the logic used by the person who has high standards.

dc_dux · 11-23-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...It is a question of standards. I agree that a person who has low standards may not understand the person or the logic used by the person who has high standards.

I get your logic and your high standards.....80 = 45.

aceventura3 · 11-24-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I get your logic and your high standards.....80 = 45.

I don't think you do.

P.S. - A person's standards are personal and it is subjective, higher standards should not suggest superiority, just differences. Standards vary from issue to issue even for the same individual. I been told that my communication style suffers because of denotation compared to connotation. I have found I am rarely in sync with liberals on this.

dksuddeth · 11-24-2009, 05:26 PM

Wondering how well this works with other so called rights.

Every home must have an operable rifle, shotgun, and handgun w/corresponding ammunition for each for home defense. Reason is that law enforcement is spread too thin and people have a right to protect themselves.

once a year, you must bring all 3 weapons and ammo to your local law enforcement for verification and inspection. For those that cannot afford those 3 weapons, they will be provided to you at a discounted price by a government program. These weapons will be from the hi-point manufacturer.
All citizens who will not provide 3 weapons for inspection or produce an inspection certificate on demand will be taxed 750 dollars each year.

ratbastid · 11-24-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I been told that my communication style suffers because of denotation compared to connotation. I have found I am rarely in sync with liberals on this.

In my experience, your communication style suffers because of the conflation of subjective and objective. Conservatives have no monopoly on this particular brand of intellectual self-dishonesty, I regret to say.

aceventura3 · 11-30-2009, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

In my experience, your communication style suffers because of the conflation of subjective and objective. Conservatives have no monopoly on this particular brand of intellectual self-dishonesty, I regret to say.

An interesting point. From my point of view I don't think I have any issue at all with the separation of the subjective and the objective. I often make an extra effort to point out the subjective point of view that I have - I have often made it clear what my biases are, when my mind is closed, when posting selected information that supports my views (or cherry picking), etc. On many issues I never make any pretense of being objective. I would argue that those who make personal comments directed at me have simply failed to understand the difference. But, that is just from my point of view.

11-20-2009, 01:26 PM	#48 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Just so we understand, it is ace and FOX news who have characterized SCHIP as inadequate. The program goal is to have a 95% penetration rate among eligible families and the rate is in the high 80s. Inadequate? Inefficient? Ask those 80+% of working families who now have health care for their kids....more than 6 million kids. And it is not an issue of funding by any analysis. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 11-20-2009 at 01:29 PM..

11-24-2009, 05:26 PM	#61 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Wondering how well this works with other so called rights. Every home must have an operable rifle, shotgun, and handgun w/corresponding ammunition for each for home defense. Reason is that law enforcement is spread too thin and people have a right to protect themselves. once a year, you must bring all 3 weapons and ammo to your local law enforcement for verification and inspection. For those that cannot afford those 3 weapons, they will be provided to you at a discounted price by a government program. These weapons will be from the hi-point manufacturer. All citizens who will not provide 3 weapons for inspection or produce an inspection certificate on demand will be taxed 750 dollars each year. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

11-20-2009, 10:08 AM	#42 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	"Some say that SCHIP is inadequate." --Fox News

11-20-2009, 01:38 PM	#49 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Everything in the world is inadequate and inefficient. Does that mean we should stop doing everything? The process of converting energy in to light is inefficient as it produces heat, we should get rid of all lights! The process of converting gas/oil/coal/etc into energy is inefficient, i guess we should top burning any fossil fuels. Nearly everything can be done better but that doesn't mean we should just stop what we are doing....