"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
You are misrepresenting what I said and you are putting words in my mouth.
Um okay. That doesn't make much sense but frankly, I'm not expecting much anyways.So... for a successful socialist system, your example is the military? My... what we have to look forward to... ROTFLOL... but hey... we're on our way. Soon we'll be set out for harvest in the potato fields like in the good 'ol USSR.
You mean where I have actual evidence and where you make wild accusations and are completely unable to prove them? Not many people.ROTFLOL... do you know how many people will laugh their asses off reading that? Coming from you!
Still running away from answering a very simple question. You accused me of citing the VA. I did not cite the VA. I provided the link to the VA and asked you if that was the same link I provided earlier. You refuse to answer this.va.gov... and the VA is not known for its stellar performance. It should be. The vets should get the best of the best. But they don't.
You must really be cruising for another temporary banning.Intellectual bankruptcy seems to be one of your strong suits.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Once again, you fail because you lack logic.
And I accepted that you did not start the poll. That did not discount my argument. In fact, it was irrelevant to my argument. You made the appeal to logic logical fallacy.I offered you a gracious out for ascribing the Poll to me, but in your arrogance you didn't take it. Since then you've tried muddying the waters in an effort to CYA.
Appeal to logic logical fallacy. I erred in who started the poll. That does not alter the fact that your position is invalid. You still fail.Sorry... You screwed up, and your recovery isn't one. It's a failure. You should have quit when you were ahead... when I graciously offered you an out for your error. But no... you tried to spin it in an attempt to cover your screw up. Bad move.
You couldn't without being dishonest. And since you were dishonest... as you are now, you couldn't and can't.You claimed I couldn't define socialism. Wrong. I couldn't define socialism to appease your intellectually bankrupt definition of it.
You're the expert in posting spin. Fortunately, I see through your spin a expose it. I know you don't like that. Too bad.You can try to spin your way out of this... but that's all it is... spin.
You got your ass kicked as you always do. It was quite easy to do. I keep a list of logical fallacies open in another window when I debate you, zim. I know I will need to be pointing out several that you use when you post.Who got their ass kicked... and who is intellectually bankrupt? Like OC... you kicked your very own ass, and your intellectual bankruptcy on the terms Socialist and Socialism... says volumes.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
For the record, I'm for giving the girl a pass on the eligibility requirements since it said doctors had determined she was fit for the procedure, her youth, and the pressing threat of time, but I'm not being a hypocrite railing about the evils of such selection.
Since organ transplants are a poor example of a death panel, I'd like to see a better example if there is one.
1. The piece was so sensationalist... YOU never heard of it.
2. You didn't watch the video of Sebelius and the Congressman; not taken out of context. The girl was being denied a life saving procedure, The Secretary of Health & Human Services had the power to change that. There are 139 instances in ObamaKare where it states "the Secretary determines"... and this was one where should could have. She didn't.
139 instances where we have a Tzar or Tzarina... "... the Secretary determines..."
3. It is anything but a poor example; This situation was a very good preview of what is coming when The Government is the Decider of life and death.
Last edited by zimmer; 09-14-13 at 02:46 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
- Your example of a successful socialist system is the Military. Correct? Yes... it was your answer... so...
- The VA is a service to military veterans.
- Military veterans were promised healthcare as part of their package of benefits for serving the country.
- The VA system is not functioning well.
- And this thread is about ObamaKare, and its failures and impending failure... and all Socialists systems do fail.
- Now, you cite the military as a successful socialist system. OK… but it’s healthcare arm for vets is a failure.
This is similar to your and your Twin having blinders on regarding the definition of Socialist and Socialism. You only accept your narrow definition, and with that illustrate a fair level of dishonesty.
ROTFLOL... No... and you really should have saved that for an instance someone actually did that. But... you're so hot to get that cloak off your back you jump at what seems to be the first opportunity to pass it along. OC... you've earned that cloak, and for years of service in earning it, it will take almost as many years of honest debate to shed it. ROTFLOL... sorry, using the Obvious Child measure of "putting words in other people's mouths", it's an epic fail.You are misrepresenting what I said and you are putting words in my mouth.
...I was pointing out the VA is a failure, and the remainder is answered above in the list. You prefer to have this stuff in a vacuum, but it’s not. You can be cute about it… but that’s all it is; more intellectual dishonesty.
Ah... no OC... I extrapolated from your answer. I did not accuse you of citing the VA.Still running away from answering a very simple question. You accused me of citing the VA. I did not cite the VA. I provided the link to the VA and asked you if that was the same link I provided earlier. You refuse to answer this.
The VA is part of the services promised to those who serve in our military. The remainder is answered above.
Itchy fingers? … ROTFLOL...You must really be cruising for another temporary banning.
...Bring it On. It'd be your out to not having your can kicked.
Your one defense of socialism working is the military. You have no others to pin ObamaKare's defense upon?
A GOLD STAR for you... At least you attempted an answer... CC tried to slither out of it by stating I put the words in his mouth about a socialist system succeeding. No... I put forth the same words I've put forth to others for eons... show me a socialist system that works.
Last edited by zimmer; 09-14-13 at 03:10 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
1. I didn’t say you said there was a socialist system succeeding. I stated “Show me one that is a success.” Good try… try again.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...#post106230563 (Who will Democrats blame for the failure of Obamacare?)
2.Your being “consistent” is a problem because Socialism, Socialists, and Socialists legislation do not require “purity”.
3. I did not say “pure”… you did. I use Socialist and Socialism in terms which are correct. Perhaps they should change the title… “Democratic Socialism” and those that uphold Scandinavian countries that are used as examples of it.
4. You see, what you consider “Socialist” is a mere part of the definition, the one you hold on to like Linus and his blanket. It’s also like being a horse with blinders. I believe what we can call your state of mind being selective, and blind.
5. So… show me one. Show me a socialist system that works. It’s a question I have often asked. Show me one so we can have an example of one that works. Your twin actually answered the question and used the Military as an example. A GOLD STAR on the forehead for him.
But the VA, a medical service for vets, part of their package of benefits in OC’s socialist structure is problem laden. This system serves a small portion of our society and it is not doing very well. One could say, and many have said… it is failing our veterans of the military.
There is no bad reasoning on my part... just because you say so. ROTFLOL…Once again, you fail because you lack logic.
If you look at history and apply it to ObamaKare, you find it is doomed to failure. That's not logical fallacy... like stating because dogs have legs, a chair is a dog. No... it is looking to history and discovering... this crap doesn't fly!
ObamaKare is failing, and a Demokrat author of the mess is calling it a "train wreck".
Is a “train wreck” the definition of success where you come from? It surely would explain a lot.
So let’s a have a little deeper look at what non-failure looks like… shall we?
Zimmer notes in Red:
Man, that’s a whole lotta non-success. Can we say “failure”? ROTFLOL.The ObamaCare train wreck: Column
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, opponents (mostly Republicans) warned that it would be a disaster. (Zimmer note: "Disaster = non-success) Few of us on Capitol Hill could have anticipated that we would later be joined by a raft of former Democratic proponents so eager to distance themselves from ObamaCare that they're using even harsher terms (Zimmer note: harsher than "train wreck" = non-success). Let's call these politicians the Train Wreck Club.
The name comes from the author of the law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. … Fretting over this disaster, Baucus famously told … Kathleen Sebelius that he worried the implementation of the law was becoming a "train wreck."
Baucus' words were bewildering: No one in the country bears more responsibility for the complexity of this law than him. -- he's looking for scapegoats. (Zimmer note: is this what one does when it’s a non-failure?)
Just look at Baucus' company in the club. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doubled-down and said he agreed with Baucus' comment. (Zimmer note: Oops!)
They already know more money is not the answer. They are just trying to hide unpleasant realities from their constituents –
The Affordable Care Act was pitched as a way to save money and lower premiums. Yet Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), recently admitted that premiums have increased "in part because of ObamaCare," (Zimmer note: Those aren't unknown back benchers... Oops!)
This law raises premiums, lowers the quality of care, increases taxes and jeopardizes the insurance Americans were promised they could keep. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), echoed these concerns (Zimmer note: Sounds like a non-success to me. What’s another word for that? Ah yes… Failure).
These aren't problems of poor implementation; they're problems of implementation, period. (Zimmer note: That… sounds… like? Non-success.)
• Daniel Kessler of Stanford estimates that 10 million people -- about two-thirds of the market that is low- or average-risk -- will see higher insurance bills for 2014. (Zimmer note: Success or Failure?)
• One insurer, WellPoint, found that for 11 states, small-group premiums are expected to increase by 13% to 23% on average. (Zimmer note: Success or Failure?)
• The Congressional Budget Office reported in February that "in 2019, an estimated 12 million people... will lose their (coverage) offer under current law." That estimate means ObamaCare will actually reduce health care coverage for millions of Americans. (Zimmer note: Success or Failure?)
• A recently released study in the New England Journal of Medicine by a group of the nation's top health policy scholars… who put this law on the books don't like finding out what's in a bill after they have passed it. (Zimmer note: Success or Failure?)
Again... your slither is as successful as ObamaKare. Learning from the lessons of histroy is not logical fallacy, it's trying to prevent repeating making the same mistakes others have made. It's called l-e-a-r-n-i-n-g. Or do you believe our bureaucrats are more talented than others throughout history? That they have the magic?Appeal to logic logical fallacy. I erred in who started the poll. That does not alter the fact that your position is invalid. You still fail.
Your mental LP seems stuck in “logical fallacy”… it keeps skipping the same refrain… “logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy… because you have zero rebuttal or defense beyond claiming others have poor reasoning. Is it because your rebuttal is an empty sack?
You claim my position is invalid due to bad reasoning but offer no explanation why ObamaKare is a success… ROTFLOL… logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy…
You claimed I couldn't define socialism. Wrong. I couldn't define socialism to appease your narrow minded definition of it. You simply did not accept the definitions, though they are common and found throughout dictionaries since the first half of the 1800's.
Perhaps Howard Dean is speaking about something he has no idea about… Socialism? He was what… head o the DNC? What is this “Socialism” he’s talking about? You mean his party isn’t advocating it? You mean it’s still to come? ROTFLOL…
We have a Demokrat party that has been overrun with Socialism and Socialists. We have a president that was schooled and mentored by them… but no… their running around injecting as much government as possible into the lives of people is not Socialist. What is it then… ROTFLOL.
CC, your post can’t be called a rebuttal; it’s too lame. It’s a pompous attempt to deflect the fact government intrusion into healthcare HAS A PERFECT RECORD OF FAILURE.
Or are we the nation who can show the others how it works? ROTFLOL. And that the “train wreck” called ObamaKare is the definition of … non-failure?
It’s no wonder our country is in the crapper when public statements by the party that passed it in a strict party-line vote call it “train wreck”, and for some this fails to translate to failure.
Poor reasoning? Is looking at other socialist systems, finding none work and thereby believing ours will!
You may call that logical fallacy… I call your use of it here stupidity, for “one should learn from the lessons of history”.
Again, show me… a socialist system that works.
Have a great weekend
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
I just have to ask, if "ObamaKare," like you call it, will definitely be such a disaster, why are Republicans still trying to repeal it? I mean, politically, the best thing they could do, if they really believe that it will fail, and since they've never supported it, is to stay out of the way and let it be implemented. That way, as the "disaster" unfolds, they can stand up and take credit for their accurate predictions, the voters will hand them a landslide in 2014, and then they can have the votes to repeal it.
Instead, their constant votes to repeal it have left them with no record on legislation on any other issue. They might get some credit if Obamacare fails, but at the same time some people are going to be upset over how little they've done in office. If Obamacare is mostly harmless, voters are going to wonder why they were so fixated on it. And if it is a modest success, they'll look even worse. I don't see the practicality or political savvy of their actions, rather than as a short-term effort to avoid being primaried from the right.
Simple. Unlike Demokrats who use everything for politics, even voting to send troops to war, and then stabbing them in the back in their hour of need... this is about what is best for the nation.
As I've asked many times... show me a socialist system that works. When we find one, then perhaps we have an example of success. But there are none that we can point to and say... Hey! Looksey here Amigo's... a model of socialist healthcare that actually works!
ObamaKare is an abortion of a bill, perhaps it's why Demokrats love it so. The ObamaKare abortion need be disposed of... for the good of the nation.
I suggest you read some stuff from David Gratzer, an MD who knows both the US and Canadian systems.
Code Blue: Reviving Canada's Health Care System: Dr. David Gratzer: 9781550223934: Amazon.com: Books
JANUARY 03, 2013 by GREGORY CUMMINGS
A new study on Canadian healthcare has been released. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91 percent longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
Currently, Canadians are awaiting an estimated 870,462 procedures. Life on a waiting list isn’t pretty. It involves living in a state of poorer health, in constant fear that treatment will come too late, increased suffering and lower quality of life, and financial and economic loss. According to Dr. David Gratzer, author of Code Blue: Reviving Canada’s Health Care System, some patients even die without treatment. Others will travel in search of health care. In fact, an estimated 0.9 percent of patients left the country in 2012 in preference for treatment outside of Canada.
Read more: A Cure for Obamacare: From Canada with Love : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
Dr. David Gratzer (Canadian trained MD)
I learned my most important lesson in medical school not in the classroom, but on the way to it. I grew up in Winnipeg, which is in the middle of Canada. It's a city roughly the size of Indianapolis. On a cold winter day in Winnipeg, it can drop to 40 below. Needless to say, Winnipeggers are a hardy bunch, and all parking lots are outside.
So I parked my car that February morning and walked to the classroom. I wanted to take a short*cut because it was blisteringly cold outside, and I decided to cut across the emergency department as I had done before. I swung open the doors and walked in, and I discovered the emergency room overcrowding crisis that was plaguing so many Canadian hospitals in the mid-1990s. I stood there, and I remember the smell: the smell of sweat, the smell of urine, the smell of fear that hung in the air. Elderly people had been waiting four, sometimes even five days to get a bed. And I remember step*ping into that emergency room and thinking to myself, something is desperately amiss.
When I grew up in Canada, I was interested in getting into medical school. If you had stopped me on the street when I was 16 or 17 and asked me about the Medical College Admission Test, I could have given you a variety of very satisfying, unique statistics on admission and so on. I didn't give a lot of thought to health policy. When managed care was debated in the United States, I remember vaguely thinking there was something good about the idea: After all, government should be involved in health care. I had never even been to Washington, D.C.
But when I stepped into that emergency room, it got me thinking. Again, I was a Canadian. There are three things I absorbed from that environment: One was a fondness for ice hockey, the second was an ability to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius in my head, and the third thing was a belief that if the government did it when it came to health care, it must be compassionate.
Eventually, I began to think about these things. In Canada at the time, there were really two schools of thought with regard to health reform. There were the people who thought we should spend more--I like to call them the spendthrifts--and the people who thought we should just hire more administrators and make the system work better--I like to call them the magicians. I started to think about these things, and I became a spendthrift, and then I became a magician, and then I became agnostic, and eventually I became an atheist on health policy in Canada because I realized there was something going on which was much more fundamental: that there was a problem with a government-run system.
Maybe it was just the experiences I had, seeing a patient who had a minor hernia repair and a neu*rofiber was caught and needed to be referred to a pain clinic; unfortunately, there was a two-year wait list. A gentleman with the classic symptoms of sleep apnea needed to go to a sleep disorders clinic and get a test: three-year wait list. My father, who could barely walk--classic symptoms of spinal stenosis--was told he needed an MRI and told he should wait eight or nine months.
These were the things I came into contact with, and I rethought my beliefs. I started to write arti*cles on this and the problems in Canadian health care, but there's only so much you can say in 700 words, so I started to write a longer piece. I told my parents, and they were very supportive about the idea, but I'm not sure they thought I would get my book published.
I initially approached 12 publishers and got 13 letters of rejection. One publisher lost my sample chapters. They rejected the proposal. Then they found the sample chapter, and it was just as bad as they thought it would be, so they sent me another letter of rejection. Eventually, I got the book pub*lished, and it went on to win the Donner Book Prize, which is a prestigious award in Canada.
What I discovered was how many Canadians were realizing that there was a problem in the system. Maybe our politicians weren't willing to talk about it, but they themselves could appreciate that something was not right in Canada. Eventually, people spoke out about this. Canadian politicians are a very cau*tious lot and continue to not really speak at great length about these things, but the mood had sud*denly shifted.
Today, things are very different than they were even a short time ago. A private clinic opens up at a rate of about one a week in Canada. One of the foremost critics of Canadian health care is a doctor who was just elected president of the Canadian Medical Association. Even the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes something is desperately amiss; just last year, they ruled in a case that access to waiting lists is not access to health care, and this undermines some fundamental constitutional rights that Canadians had, and they struck down key laws in the province of Quebec.
Canadians are beginning to rethink their system. You find the same thing across Europe. Yet here's the irony: If Canadians are willing to rethink things and embrace, at least to some extent, some capital*ism when it comes to health care, I find increasing*ly that Americans are not. If Canadians are willing to rethink these issues, Americans are also rethink*ing and heading down the same lines that Canada once did. That's a terrible mistake and part of my motivation for writing this book.
The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
Dr. Gratzer is the author of Code Blue: Reviving Canada's Health Care System. He's also a frequent contributor to the Canadian publication the National Post. He's written for The Wall Street Jour*nal, the Weekly Standard, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Time Canada. He is, of course, a member of the medical profession and also a senior specialist in health policy. He's a peer reviewer for professional journals, including the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, the Canadian Medical Association Journal,and the American Journal of Medicine.
Last edited by zimmer; 09-15-13 at 03:46 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
To bad OBAMACARE is NOT IN EFFECT.
it starts Jan 1...............
How can it fail when it has not started.................
Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why,