• 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!

Would you utilize the public option?

Will you utilize the public healthcare option?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Total voters
    45
Pick your favorite way. It makes no difference to the question I asked.

As you have said, Voidwar, it is your term...therefore it is up to you to provide an example...which is what I've been requesting.

Your term, your example. Thanks in advance.
 
As you have said, Voidwar, it is your term...therefore it is up to you to provide an example...which is what I've been requesting.

Your term, your example. Thanks in advance.

My term is in my question, which you can't answer without resorting to terminology substitution.

You have run from the original question for 16 pages.
 
Whats your favorite color ?

You are in a hole. Stop digging.

You are obviously not looking to discuss the public option.
 
You are in a hole. Stop digging.

You are obviously not looking to discuss the public option.

I am not in any hole, because I am not the one running from the original question for 16 pages.
 
My term is in my question...

Which you have been asked to clarify for pages. Since it is your term, it is up to YOU to clarify it and give examples.
 
I am not in any hole, because I am not the one running from the original question for 16 pages.

You are running from my original question. You brought up this whole breach of contract business. I am asking you to explain what would constitute a breach of contract.
 
Which you have been asked to clarify for pages. Since it is your term, it is up to YOU to clarify it and give examples.

I am not fooled CaptainCourtesy. You don't fail to understand my term, you just know you can't answer the question unless you substitute it. No-one has been fooled by your feigned illiteracy from the get go.
 
I am not fooled CaptainCourtesy. You don't fail to understand my term, you just know you can't answer the question unless you substitute it. No-one has been fooled by your feigned illiteracy from the get go.

No one is fooled by your feigned outrage, Voidwar. You can't define your term because you know it means the same as mine. This is why you have been avoiding a simple request to clarify from the get-go.
 
So tell us, Voidwar, are we done, here?
 
No one is fooled by your feigned outrage, Voidwar.

I am not feigning anything. I am not outraged.

You can't define your term because you know it means the same as mine.

If it did mean the same, you would not have needed to substitute it, now would you ?

This is why you have been avoiding a simple request to clarify from the get-go.

I have not been avoiding anything.

It is YOU who have been avoiding my original question for 17 pages.

A simple examination of the order of posts on page two proves it.
 
Your question is a red herring. It is an irrelevant side issue that has no bearing on the question I asked, as I already explained to you here :

No, you wish it was a red herring. It is not.

You know how the answer would make your stance look.
 
I am not feigning anything. I am not outraged.

Then we all must wonder why you are avoiding clarifying your terms.



If it did mean the same, you would not have needed to substitute it, now would you ?

If it didn't mean the same, the answer would have been different. Since it did, the answer remains consistent.



I have not been avoiding anything.

It is YOU who have been avoiding my original question for 17 pages.

A simple examination of the order of posts on page two proves it.

Sure you have. You have been avoiding clarifying what you meant. If you know, just say it. If you don't, tell us now. Do you know what you meant?
 
No, you wish it was a red herring. It is not.

Maybe you just don't know what a red herring is . . .

Red herring
Main article: Red herring (idiom)

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring".

The thrust of my question was to whom would one appeal a breach of contract. Your attempt to bring up the particulars of any one breach of contract suit, are immaterial to the question of whom one would appeal the suit to.

You know how the answer would make your stance look.

Simply false. I already told you, pick your own favorite, it makes no difference to my question.
 
Since the site's about to go down for re-indexing, and I have an early day, in the morning, I will return tomorrow...I'm certain, still, without Voidwar clarifying his term, and continuing to stall debate.
 
...I'm certain, still, without Voidwar clarifying his term, and continuing to stall debate.

What's continuing, is Captain Courtesy's avoidance of the question I asked him on page two.
 
Then we all must wonder why you are avoiding clarifying your terms.

Naw, if we were people who wondered, what we would wonder is why you can't answer the original question.
 
If I was American, possibly, yes. It'd depend on the charges and what the plan covered. Lord knows if they'll actually be able to establish a public option that isn't stripped down to appease those who love their socilaised roads, schools, libraries and fire departments but are somehow convinced that socialised medicine will be a horrendous beauracratic montrosity.
A lot of those things are horrendous, bureaucratic monstrosities. It takes a lot to avoid that will a public option, though it would be possible.
 
Maybe you just don't know what a red herring is . . .

I know.

The thrust of my question was to whom would one appeal a breach of contract. Your attempt to bring up the particulars of any one breach of contract suit, are immaterial to the question of whom one would appeal the suit to.

This is the red herring. You are complaining about CC switching terms when it is apparent that they are talking about the same thing.

Simply false. I already told you, pick your own favorite, it makes no difference to my question.

Okay, denial of benefits it is.
 
Due to the assumed intellectual characteristics of the users on this forum due to your pursuit of "intellectual" debate, most of you probably have jobs and already have healthcare, I was interested in real numbers on the consumer base of the public option. Please vote truthfully.
i would if i had the need, absolutely.
 
Dear ****ing god, yes. I've seen how Medicare works first hand while working in the health care industry.


I trust pretty much anyone to handle things better than the government does.


And myself, I KNOW I don't want some government bureaucrat deciding that I'm not allowed to eat this or drink that or participate in that kind of sport because they don't want to foot the bill should I get sick or injured. I also don't want to pay out the ass in taxes to fund something as sad as medicaid/medicare, be denied payment of my services and be too broke to pay for it myself because I'm being taxed to death to pay for "healthcare" that rations its services.


And I KNOW I DON'T want some government group making decisions about my personal life choices and healthcare. I do NOT want the government to have a vested interest in my health and as such, have reason and ability to limit my personal freedoms and choices.


At least for now I can.


Who says I would even have it?


I always do.



I have no problem with people choosing to mooch off the government as long as I can choose not to, and choose not to pay for it with my taxes.

Public option is absolutely fine with me as long as I can opt out of using it and opt out of paying for it. In that case, I consider the government just another insurance agency - As long as they refrain from banning "unhealthy" foods or activities and/or refrain from mandating certain activities.
wow......why is opting, and paying for, a public option considered mooching? MOST of us pay taxes.
 

So did you deliberately use a red herring as a distraction or . . . .

This is the red herring. You are complaining about CC switching terms when it is apparent that they are talking about the same thing.

Simply false. If they WERE the same thing, he would have been able to answer the original question

Okay, denial of benefits it is.

Still don't understand a red herring eh ?
 
Since it is obvious to me that you are unable to understand what this thread is about, I will allow the OP to tell you:


As usual, TD, you have been exposed as a liar, and someone who has no intention of discussing issues, but would rather just spew their foolish extreme rightwing partisan hackery...and ignore the issues in the thread.

As for the rest of your nonsensical typical irrelevancy? Basement material.

Once again you attempt to project, obfuscate and deny your own intellectually dishonest efforts.

Are you going to respond to my comments exposing your lies and distortions about my arguments in your typically uninformed effort to insult my comments with trite little claims of "hyper partisanship?"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/56108-would-you-utilize-public-option-13.html#post1058253702

Trust me, I don't expect any honesty from you; the notion that you could deal honestly and intellectually would require the willful suspension of disbelief.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom