• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Address

jallman said:
It sounds more like, to me, that you were extorting the "anti-Obama types" into agreeing that Obama is "cool" with the threat that if they don't agree with you on this, then they are just irrational. It just seems like you are trying to extort a congruency of opinion that just isn't there.
Click to expand...

You found me out!!:3oops:

(just trying to PROVE that Obama is :cool::cool:..man!):lol:
 
PogueMoran said:
Taken an interest in stand up comedy now?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not taking an interest in stand up comedy. Just telling the truth.

When are you going to stop paying homage to the messiah and criticize his policies that are obviously worth criticism?
 
Devil505 said:
You found me out!!:3oops:

(just trying to PROVE that Obama is :cool::cool:..man!):lol:
Click to expand...

Well rather than make loaded comments that you were 'just trying to see if the anti-Obama types could be honest', you could have just listened and took them on based on their points.

Are you seeking opinion about the speech or are you seeking validation for your liking the speech? It's hard to tell.
 
I respectfully disagree 100 per cent.

If a hospital, doctor or surgeon screws up, than they should have have to pay.
Why should there be a limit?
Click to expand...

Because juries can be emotionally swayed to award large fines even though it might not be warranted. Same way We shouldnt allow Juries to give first time Burglars life in prison.

I knew a four year child who went in for routine surgery, and the anestiosologist somehow screwed up, and you know what happened?
The kid ended up braindead.
Click to expand...

Nothing in life is garaunteed, mistakes happen no need for doctors to be affraid in doing their jobs for fear of being economically destroyed, or forcing great doctors with stellar records to pay huge premiums for the mistakes of the few bad apples.

I'm sorry Oxy, but no I do not think there should be a limit on malpractice lawsuits.
Click to expand...

I think there should.

Your kid ends up braindead for life and all of a sudden you can only sue for 200,000, 300,00, 400,000 thousand?
Click to expand...
Money wont change the facts.

If the doctor acted with disregard and carelessly then they should go to jail, awarding huge sums wont change anything.
 
OxymoronP said:
Because juries can be emotionally swayed to award large fines even though it might not be warranted. Same way We shouldnt allow Juries to give first time Burglars life in prison.

.
Click to expand...

Huh?

If the facts of the case point to blatant malpractice, and your child ends up braindead, or worse, you're damn right there should be hell to pay.

Of course a jury is going to be emotional, who the hell wouldn't be in the case of severe medical malpractice?

I suspect most Americans will never support a bill that leaves the average citizen at a disadvantage by telling them that "you can only sue for this much" against an HMO, doctor, or hospital.

Do you think an HMO, hospital, or doctor would ever allow a bill where they can only sue the government or another party for a limited amount?

Do you really honestly believe they would stand for that? But you want to limit the average person?

Limiting the amount of money an average American can sue for, is about as restrictive and unfair as it gets.

I hope to God, you're not serious about your views.
 
Last edited:
I am very amused by the efforts to deflect this "post turtles" failures and make it all about a single Republican that violated the good behavior expected of a Congressperson and respect to be shown this liar while he spews is invective.

But alas, the truth is Obama is a liar and attempting to deflect it by focusing on people like Palin and Rush Limbaugh to cover up his lies and distortions about the efforts of his fellow Liberal Democrats and his own agenda.

Now many here who wallow in self induced denial as disciples of their messiah may accuse me of being a right wing partisan; but alas, it has ZERO to do with my partisanship as I am merely taking the man at his word. Don't believe me? Here he is in his very own words.

Now you can watch this and spin it any way you wish, but it is obvious to anyone not willingly suspending their disbelief what this man is about and what his agenda is:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbXrSK_VfME"]YouTube - Barack Obama: I Want Universal Health Care, Not Private Insurance (2007) [Naked Emperor News][/ame]

Here's Obama caught in his own lies by a reporter and his stumbling backtracking:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama and single payer health care[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6O-b1IHh4&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama: Health care plan[/ame]

Obama once again not answering any questions.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yily0Mf2eQ&feature=related"]YouTube - Obama on Single Payer Healthcare[/ame]

Obama predicting that over time, yes, we will get single payer.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wTDK-LwqE&feature=related"]YouTube - Obama On Single Payer Health Care[/ame]

Here's Obama claiming the Clinton's did it the wrong way; what irony eh?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RagbVl29JiQ&feature=related"]YouTube - Barack Obama on Health Care Reform[/ame]

Bottom line; after watching Obama lie and contradict himself with every speech, how can anyone take this “post turtle” serious and believe a word he spews?
 
jackalope said:
Sorry, Gill, you are wrong. There are many millions more that don't have insurance. You can see the Kaiser Commission report (link posted earlier in the thread), or a brand new Census report, out just this am. Here is a TP post on the report, follow many intra-article links to source data:
Click to expand...

Which is it?? Last month it was 47 mil without insurance and now it's 30 mil that cannot get insurance. Did he subtract the people that can afford insurance but choose not to? If so, is he including the illegals without insurance in the mix. The difference of 17 mil does NOT include both those that choose not to have insurance AND illegals.

He's playing games with numbers.


Further, re: citizenship -- please scroll back thru thread. Multiple links and posts have been submitted.

You *cannot* be an illegal alien and qualify for federal money under HR3200, or any of the bills in Congress.
There is no citizenship requirement for *purchasing* insurance in the proposed insurance market, the Exchange, but there is no citizenship requirement for purchasing insurance or health care now. If an illegal alien DID purchase insurance in the Exchange, they would pay full freight, b/c they would not be eligible for any federal subsidies at all.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on you to quote a provision in HR 3200 that requires proof of citizenship to receive government paid health care.

Under H.R. 3200, all legal permanent residents (LPRs),23 nonimmigrants, and unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test (defined above) would be required to obtain health insurance. Noncitizens meeting the definition of nonresident aliens (e.g., temporary visitors, temporary workers in the United States for less than 183 days in the year) would not be required to obtain health insurance. Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals—an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a nonresident alien. Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.
Click to expand...

In its subsection on health insurance subsidies (known as “affordability credits”), HR 3200 does state, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” That would seem to solve the problem, but it’s more rhetoric than reality. The bill contains no verification requirement or enforcement process for citizenship or legal residency, as exists for other federal benefit programs. The only verification required for the subsidies pertains to family income. Beyond that, as the CRS report notes, everything is left in the hands of the Health Choices Commissioner.

House Democrats defeated all attempts in committee to add an enforcement mechanism that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency for those getting subsidies.
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
It sounds more like, to me, that you were extorting the "anti-Obama types" into agreeing that Obama is "cool" with the threat that if they don't agree with you on this, then they are just irrational. It just seems like you are trying to extort a congruency of opinion that just isn't there.
Click to expand...

That was my take on it as well.
 
Devil505 said:
You both got me!!

(I'm just an Extortionist at heart.......but then again......I am the :devil:
Click to expand...

I don't think you are anything so majestic as the devil. You're just very transparent.
 
If the facts of the case point to blatant malpractice, and your child ends up braindead, or worse, you're damn right there should be hell to pay.
Click to expand...
In criminal court perhaps if there was serious malpractice, but using fines doesnt just hurt that one doctor it hurts all doctors.

Of course a jury is going to be emotional, who the hell wouldn't be in the case of severe medical malpractice?
Click to expand...

The judgement should be based on the law to prevent over doing punishements. That is why there are limits to what the Juries can do to punish criminals based on the crime. Same concept should be used in Civil cases.

I suspect most Americans will never support a bill that leaves the average citizen at a disadvantage by telling them that "you can only sue for this much" against an HMO, doctor, or hospital.
Click to expand...

If it lowers their insurance premiums and improves health care they would be very supportive.

Do you think an HMO, hospital, or doctor would ever allow a bill where they can only sue the government or another party for a limited amount?
Click to expand...

Depends what they get in return.

Do you really honestly believe they would stand for that? But you want to limit the average person?
Click to expand...

I want to limit the degree of punishement based on the facts not emotions and caliber of lawyer used.

Limiting the amount of money an average American can sue for, is about as restrictive and unfair as it gets.
Click to expand...

Why is the Jury restricted in criminal cases? I mean if god forbid my brother was killed I would want the killer to burn and be tortured to death why shouldnt that be an option if he is found guilty?

I hope to God, you're not serious about your views.
Click to expand...

I hope to God you stop viewing things from an obscure vantage point.
 
Devil505 said:
really like to hear from any Repubs who can be honest & as non-partisan as they can be. The mechanics of the speech.....Was it delivered well?
Click to expand...

Why are the "mechanics" of anything a substitute for substance and honesty? I am curious about this "mechanics" argument. :doh
 
Nothing but new lies and new threats and no changes to HR3200. He starts by calling all opposition liars and then gets upset when he's called a liar. He says he's open to any ideas anyone has. Did you see the Republicans holding up bills Pelosi refuses to allow on the floor. He says one thing and she does another and apparently they are the only ones confused.

I don't recall another president threatening that the American people will be "called out" for exercising their freedom of speech if they don't agree with all elements of his plan. He stated that the opposition should tone done the rhetoric. Did he directly address the people of this country being called thugs, mobs, insane, nazi, brownshirts, senile, astroturf by the democrats. It's the democrats that need to become civil and stop the personal attacks.

The most despicable moment was in bringing Kennedy into the speech in such a prominent manner to try to guilt everyone into passing government run healthcare.

This bill needs to to totally thrown out. It was crafted to either instill government run one payer health care or to instill a system that causes it to occur. Obama's has stated this in interview.
 
The_Limt said:
Huh?

If the facts of the case point to blatant malpractice, and your child ends up braindead, or worse, you're damn right there should be hell to pay.

Of course a jury is going to be emotional, who the hell wouldn't be in the case of severe medical malpractice?

I suspect most Americans will never support a bill that leaves the average citizen at a disadvantage by telling them that "you can only sue for this much" against an HMO, doctor, or hospital.

Do you think an HMO, hospital, or doctor would ever allow a bill where they can only sue the government or another party for a limited amount?

Do you really honestly believe they would stand for that? But you want to limit the average person?

Limiting the amount of money an average American can sue for, is about as restrictive and unfair as it gets.

I hope to God, you're not serious about your views.
Click to expand...

In blatant cases of malpractice, yeah. But, there are millions paid out every year on frivolous malpractice suits.
 
The_Limt said:
Huh?

If the facts of the case point to blatant malpractice, and your child ends up braindead, or worse, you're damn right there should be hell to pay.
Click to expand...

This illustrates one of the major fallacies of the practice of medicine and why the current industry spends so much money trying to avoid frivolous lawsuits and the high costs associated with them; the notion that medicine is some perfect science and should always have a positive outcome.

What this attitude suggests is that if someone requires a critical operation, one would be best off doing NOTHING; but alas, that will end up in a lawsuit as well. Because doctors are not given the option of doing nothing and required to perform miracles and while performing delicate operations supposed to be perfect.

The United States, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY nation which has such a litigious society. No other nation has had to deal with this issue and has seen the level of abuse of litigation like this nation. I guess it comes from this growing national attitude that we all should get something for nothing.
 
apdst said:
No, I'm not taking an interest in stand up comedy. Just telling the truth.

When are you going to stop paying homage to the messiah and criticize his policies that are obviously worth criticism?
Click to expand...
You have never been interested in honesty apdst.

I'm paying homage to jesus? Where have I been paying homage to jesus on this site? I never had a problem with Jesus feeding the poor, performing miracles turning water into wine, healing the blind, raising lazarus from the dead. What do you have against Jesus' policies?
 
Devil505 said:
You both got me!!

(I'm just an Extortionist at heart.......but then again......I am the :devil:
Click to expand...

Dude. :roll:

The floor is yours. You have my undivided attention and complete freedom to make your point in full. If he delivered the speech well, it means . . . ?
 
LowRevs said:
Nothing but new lies and new threats and no changes to HR3200. He starts by calling all opposition liars and then gets upset when he's called a liar. He says he's open to any ideas anyone has. Did you see the Republicans holding up bills Pelosi refuses to allow on the floor. He says one thing and she does another and apparently they are the only ones confused.

I don't recall another president threatening that the American people will be "called out" for exercising their freedom of speech if they don't agree with all elements of his plan. He stated that the opposition should tone done the rhetoric. Did he directly address the people of this country being called thugs, mobs, insane, nazi, brownshirts, senile, astroturf by the democrats. It's the democrats that need to become civil and stop the personal attacks.

The most despicable moment was in bringing Kennedy into the speech in such a prominent manner to try to guilt everyone into passing government run healthcare.

This bill needs to to totally thrown out. It was crafted to either instill government run one payer health care or to instill a system that causes it to occur. Obama's has stated this in interview.
Click to expand...

The above is simply a perfect analogy of what is ocurring and the contents of last nights speech; BRAVO! :applaud
 
apdst said:
In blatant cases of malpractice, yeah. But, there are millions paid out every year on frivolous malpractice suits.
Click to expand...

Were not talking about frivolous lawsuits, which i agree have to be reigned in.

Restrict the amount of money an American can sue for in cases of criminal or severe malpractice is wrong, unfair, and is a non-starter.
 
PogueMoran said:
You have never been interested in honesty apdst.

I'm paying homage to jesus? Where have I been paying homage to jesus on this site? I never had a problem with Jesus feeding the poor, performing miracles turning water into wine, healing the blind, raising lazarus from the dead. What do you have against Jesus' policies?
Click to expand...

You're going to start calling PBO Jesus, now? That's just nutty.
 
apdst said:
You're going to start calling PBO Jesus, now? That's just nutty.
Click to expand...

Oh i thought you were talking about Jesus when you said Messiah I only know of one messiah maybe you know otherwise?
 
The_Limt said:
Were not talking about frivolous lawsuits, which i agree have to be reigned in.
Click to expand...

That's what TORT reform would do. However, the lawyers in COngress aren't going to le anyone mess with their money pot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom