• 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!

Obama discusses deathbed measures

If you dig up some sources that support you on this and learn to convey it in a balanced manner, you might actually end up convincing people of your view.

So, what's with your crutch about sources? Because you're incapable of deriving logical conclusions from observed facts, you don't believe anyone can do it, except those persons who post it on some OTHER website?

You could try looking at the world around you and realize that the purpose of socialism in the minds of the controlling elites is the handy way it cons the masses into consolidating power that shouldn't be consolidated into the hands of those very elites you wouldn't trust to water your lawn in a rainstorm.
 
So, what's with your crutch about sources?

"I just don't get this guy's obsession with 'facts'."

Because you're incapable of deriving logical conclusions from observed facts, you don't believe anyone can do it, except those persons who post it on some OTHER website?

It's primarily because I have no faith in your capability to derive logical conclusions from observed facts. There are plenty of posters here who I wouldn't feel the need to ask for sources. You don't happen to be one of them.

You could try looking at the world around you and realize that the purpose of socialism in the minds of the controlling elites is the handy way it cons the masses into consolidating power that shouldn't be consolidated into the hands of those very elites you wouldn't trust to water your lawn in a rainstorm.

How exactly does that demonstrate the macroeconomic effect of a market segment monopsony?
 
So, what's with your crutch about sources? Because you're incapable of deriving logical conclusions from observed facts, you don't believe anyone can do it, except those persons who post it on some OTHER website?

You could try looking at the world around you and realize that the purpose of socialism in the minds of the controlling elites is the handy way it cons the masses into consolidating power that shouldn't be consolidated into the hands of those very elites you wouldn't trust to water your lawn in a rainstorm.

You've tried this before. Absent of sources, you claim that your logic prevails. Problem is, I've yet to see logic from you. Your conclusions are error-prone and show an inaccurate conclusion based on an absence of logic. Your "bookmark" points are absurd. There are plenty of things that are law that are not in the Constitution, and you "slippery slope" argument that private heathcare will be eliminated is nothing more than standard inaccurate scare tactics.

Until you can offer either evidence or logic for your positions, your positions are irrelevant.
 
Misleading. In a perfect world, single payer would be preferable. In the real world, it would not be. You have so much trouble with context.




Actually I think you do.


Organizing for America | BarackObama.com


What he is saying, is that he knows he can't get one.



I did not realize Canada was a "perfect world".... :lol:
 
Actually I think you do.


Organizing for America | BarackObama.com


What he is saying, is that he knows he can't get one.



I did not realize Canada was a "perfect world".... :lol:

Close, but not quite. If he was building a health care plan from the ground up, single player would be the way to go to his mind. Since this is not the case, something else is the way to go.

By the way, I did not claim, nor has Obama, that Canada is a perfect world, or that their health care system is perfect. Why do you keep having to change peoples meanings?
 
Close, but not quite. If he was building a health care plan from the ground up, single player would be the way to go to his mind. Since this is not the case, something else is the way to go.

By the way, I did not claim, nor has Obama, that Canada is a perfect world, or that their health care system is perfect. Why do you keep having to change peoples meanings?



Relax, its simply using literal views of what you post for levety. I do not think anyone could think Canada, America's hat, is the "perfect world." :lol:
 
Read the words that I posted, then try again.

How would you have no choice in Obama's system? Is he proposing to ban all private doctors?

I'm not advocating for national health care. I think it's a ****ty idea. However, your arguments against it are just plain terrible.

.....because you say so. :roll:
 
From that source:

Important to tell the whole story Rev, not just the part handy for you hyper-partisan right wing types.

Does anyone here actually THINK that private insurance will successfully compete with a Government subsidized program; HONESTLY?

Good lord, do we have to SPELL it out for everyone because they are so desperate to believe that this new change which is gradually destroying any job creation capability of this economy has been a GOOD idea?

Let me sum up what we have so far:

3.5 million Jobs lost since the beginning of the year.

A $1.7 trillion budget deficit.

NEGATIVE 5.5% GDP.

Over $11 trillion in national debt.

And through all this, we see the morons infesting our Congress trying to pass more job killing legislation like Cap and Trade and Government provided healthcare without ONE SINGLE HONEST DEBATE ABOUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT ALL.

Yep, this is the CHANGE we can all believe in all right.

The only REAL irony left in this Liberal group think is the claim that Bush was a BIG spending Liberal; hell, he looks like a penny pinching Uncle Scrooge compared to Obama! :rofl
 
You've tried this before. Absent of sources, you claim that your logic prevails. Problem is, I've yet to see logic from you. Your conclusions are error-prone and show an inaccurate conclusion based on an absence of logic. Your "bookmark" points are absurd. There are plenty of things that are law that are not in the Constitution, and you "slippery slope" argument that private heathcare will be eliminated is nothing more than standard inaccurate scare tactics.

Until you can offer either evidence or logic for your positions, your positions are irrelevant.

There you have it folks; Captain Courtesy has now declared himself the “relevance” cop and has declared Akbar's opinions and posts as being irrelevant; aside from the fact that it is merely more of the same example of disingenuous selective outrage that is so familiar with those on the Liberal left. This is another one of those "because I say so".

It begs the question; what is evidential or logical about your personal insults towards Akbar?
 
Well why should we spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to get a 97 year old a heart transplant for them to die of natural causes in two years?! What benefit does a 97 year old give society? They live off social security and use our tax money for their health care with medicare and all that nonsense.

I think I'm gonna be sick :2sick1:

Talk about blatant ageism.

First off, in the the heart transplant scenario you mentioned, there's a good chance the 97 year old would be disqualified for surgery because of other health conditions that would make general anesthesia dangerous. But suppose that person is healthy enough to undergo transplant surgery and a donor heart is found? If that person and their family deem the benefits greater than the risks of the procedure, who the hell is anyone to say they're not deserving of their right to live if that treatment would save their life? That donor heart isn't going to do anyone else any good if it doesn't match another recipient on the transplant list or if the other match can't be cleared for the procedure.

You suggest that the elderly are parasites living off the rest of us. It's a damn good thing your parents and grandparents didn't feel that way about their own children. Those people have contributed to society all their lives, and now just because their bodies are wearing out, some people want to throw them away like so much garbage. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude! You say that the elderly aren't worth saving; that they aren't important enough because they don't contribute to society. I suggest asking those whose lives were touched by the good that these people have done over the years how important they think that person is.
 
I think I'm gonna be sick :2sick1:

Talk about blatant ageism.

First off, in the the heart transplant scenario you mentioned, there's a good chance the 97 year old would be disqualified for surgery because of other health conditions that would make general anesthesia dangerous. But suppose that person is healthy enough to undergo transplant surgery and a donor heart is found? If that person and their family deem the benefits greater than the risks of the procedure, who the hell is anyone to say they're not deserving of their right to live if that treatment would save their life? That donor heart isn't going to do anyone else any good if it doesn't match another recipient on the transplant list or if the other match can't be cleared for the procedure.

You suggest that the elderly are parasites living off the rest of us. It's a damn good thing your parents and grandparents didn't feel that way about their own children. Those people have contributed to society all their lives, and now just because their bodies are wearing out, some people want to throw them away like so much garbage. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude! You say that the elderly aren't worth saving; that they aren't important enough because they don't contribute to society. I suggest asking those whose lives were touched by the good that these people have done over the years how important they think that person is.

Bravo........ :applaud
 
I think I'm gonna be sick :2sick1:

Talk about blatant ageism.

First off, in the the heart transplant scenario you mentioned, there's a good chance the 97 year old would be disqualified for surgery because of other health conditions that would make general anesthesia dangerous. But suppose that person is healthy enough to undergo transplant surgery and a donor heart is found? If that person and their family deem the benefits greater than the risks of the procedure, who the hell is anyone to say they're not deserving of their right to live if that treatment would save their life? That donor heart isn't going to do anyone else any good if it doesn't match another recipient on the transplant list or if the other match can't be cleared for the procedure.

You're confusing the question of whether someone has the right to decide to have an expensive procedure with whether someone has the right to decide to have an expensive procedure paid for by everyone else.

Nearly every disease has some particular type of treatment that is very expensive and provides some small amount of benefit. Nobody is entitled to things like that.

You suggest that the elderly are parasites living off the rest of us. It's a damn good thing your parents and grandparents didn't feel that way about their own children. Those people have contributed to society all their lives, and now just because their bodies are wearing out, some people want to throw them away like so much garbage. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude! You say that the elderly aren't worth saving; that they aren't important enough because they don't contribute to society. I suggest asking those whose lives were touched by the good that these people have done over the years how important they think that person is.

And that's all well and good, but if we try to have a health care plan organized around being kind to those who are really sweet and elderly, it's going to fall apart immediately.

Any system where people take far more out than they put in is unsustainable.
 
Back
Top Bottom