America Is NOW A Socialist Police State.
snip~
Obama and his fellow socialists in the White House and Congress probably did not realize that all the self congratulatory fist pumping , high fives, and atta-boys at the decision on Obamacare by the Supreme Court was a bit premature. Yes. They won the battle, but the war has only begun.
It was an inspirational victory—for the conservative right throughout America. The outrage was palpable.
Conservatives who were not on board for Mr. Romney, the GOP candidate running against Obama for President, began a rush to Romney's side moments after the Court's decision was announced, and money began to pour into Romney's campaign coffers. In less than four hours 1 million and a half dollars had found its way into the hands of the Romney campaign. And the spigot was barely turned on.
A tsunami of outrage rolled across America picking up steam as it went. Even the US House of Representatives announced another vote to repeal Obamacare was scheduled for early July when the representatives return from their July 4th recess.
snip~
It is crystal clear that Obama has delivered on his promise to "fundamentally CHANGE America." He most certainly did. He changed us from a free constitutional republic to a tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country "wanna-be" almost overnight. The SCOTUS made the transformation complete by not striking down Obamacare.
more @
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47715 (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47715)
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "? I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people. Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th. Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.
But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please. It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "? I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people. Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th. Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.
But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please. It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion. :rolleyes:
Jeezzzus, more pablum fed BS.
Stop and think man!
Seriously, are you really this damned stupid?
You tell me why you take theses points at face value?
Critical thinking is severely lacking in your posts.
If I seem to be hard on you, well, I am, it's time to quit handling you with kid gloves, you really need a dose of reality!
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 08:13:19 AM
Jeezzzus, more pablum fed BS.
Stop and think man!
Seriously, are you really this damned stupid?
You tell me why you take theses points at face value?
Critical thinking is severely lacking in your posts.
If I seem to be hard on you, well, I am, it's time to quit handling you with kid gloves, you really need a dose of reality!
Hey, this is what I read:
QuoteAmerica Is NOW A Socialist Police State.
snip~
Obama and his fellow socialists in the White House and Congress probably did not realize that all the self congratulatory fist pumping , high fives, and atta-boys at the decision on Obamacare by the Supreme Court was a bit premature. Yes. They won the battle, but the war has only begun.
It was an inspirational victory—for the conservative right throughout America. The outrage was palpable.
Conservatives who were not on board for Mr. Romney, the GOP candidate running against Obama for President, began a rush to Romney's side moments after the Court's decision was announced, and money began to pour into Romney's campaign coffers. In less than four hours 1 million and a half dollars had found its way into the hands of the Romney campaign. And the spigot was barely turned on.
A tsunami of outrage rolled across America picking up steam as it went. Even the US House of Representatives announced another vote to repeal Obamacare was scheduled for early July when the representatives return from their July 4th recess.
snip~
It is crystal clear that Obama has delivered on his promise to "fundamentally CHANGE America." He most certainly did. He changed us from a free constitutional republic to a tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country "wanna-be" almost overnight. The SCOTUS made the transformation complete by not striking down Obamacare.
more @
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47715 (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47715)
I don't see any brilliant revelations here to indicate that my statistics are wrong. I just see incoherent rambling and fear-mongering through very ridiculous rhetoric.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "? I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people. Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th. Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.
But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please. It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion. :rolleyes:
Off course, as usual you never ask the obvious questions. For example, what kind of coverage are the 100% getting for their dime. Remember the actress Natasha Richardson who died of head trauma because she didn't get the Cat scan which is standard in American hospitals for head trauma, but too expensive for Canada? Besides like every left loon out their, you seem to equate lack of insurance with lack of medical care, simply another one of their lying distortions. And I am sick of hearing that lying ass infant morality statistic. In American hospitals they will attempt to save EVERY infant - no matter whether they are premature. Or disabled. Or low weight. Or the child of some illegal immigrant who just managed to make it over the border, who never heard of prenatal care. In Canada - like all your other socialist utopias - they simple let a lot of these children die - and record them as stillborn, which doesn't effect their infant statistics. You know, once upon a time a simply assumed that left wingers like you were uninformed. Now after seeing the same stupid talking points raised over and over again; I've lost patience and reached the point where I believe you fall into either of two other categories. Lying sacks of fecal matter or stupid sacks of fecal matter. Which sack are you?
If you have evidence that Canada's healthcare coverage is inferior in quality, please post it.
(hint: a singular example of a famous celebrity doesn't count :glare: )
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 08:18:39 AM
Hey, this is what I read:
I don't see any brilliant revelations here to indicate that my statistics are wrong. I just see incoherent rambling and fear-mongering through very ridiculous rhetoric.
Because you haven't the ability to think for yourself.
Giles put it quite clearly and succinctly in the previous post.
Did any of the obvious ever occur to you, or are you just a blank slate willing to accept one ideal?
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 08:30:47 AM
Because you haven't the ability to think for yourself.
Hey; I did the research, and I came to my conclusion.
Now, explain to me where in walkstall's OP
anything resembling an argument is posted.
Quote
Giles put it quite clearly and succinctly in the previous post.
By using anectodal evidence from a celebrity? Yeah, real good there.
Quote
Did any of the obvious ever occur to you, or are you just a blank slate willing to accept one ideal?
When the other ideal refuses to post anything other than blabbling about Obama turning us into a 3rd world dictatorship, sure.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "? I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people. Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th. Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.
But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please. It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion. :rolleyes:
What the author stated is the government now has done is impose a penalty if a citizen decides to use what used to be their free will not to purchase a product. Are Canadians punished for not purchasing health care? Can they lose their property or freedom if they don't?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 08:35:28 AM
Hey; I did the research, and I came to my conclusion.
What research?
QuoteNow, explain to me where in walkstall's OP anything resembling an argument is posted.
Granted you're not old enough to have seen the change, but we've lost so many freedoms, including the crap Bush started via Homeland Security.
QuoteBy using anectodal evidence from a celebrity? Yeah, real good there.
No, by opening your eyes and asking yourself, is this the path I want to take?
QuoteWhen the other ideal refuses to post anything other than blabbling about Obama turning us into a 3rd world dictatorship, sure.
Think about it, he started a war with Libya, for what reason?
He tried to force the entire nation where every individual buy a product, something the Gov simply hasn't the right to do.
And as to 3rd world...
How freakin deep in debt do we have to be for you to see we will never get out of this mess?
Then he makes laws via EPA to kill our energy production, as well as penalize energy producers that didn't follow his idea of green energy.
And you don't see a problem?
Quote"Let's look further. The 37 countries that have better infant mortality than the United States have an average infant mortality of 3.8 per 1,000 live births. So of their pregnancies that result in a live delivery, 2.7 infants more (supposedly) than the U.S. (per 1,000 live births) live past one year of age.
In the United States, health care officials are fairly compulsive about statistics and their accuracy, and data surrounding deliveries is scrutinized and secure. So my best guess is that our statistics are reliable.
But look at some of the countries that do better than the U.S.: Cuba, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Thailand and others. Doesn't sound quite right, does it? Does anyone outside these countries verify the accuracy of their statistics? Not likely. And do their doctors work exceptionally hard to deliver a live newborn when the likelihood of newborn death shortly after delivery is high? It's a lot harder to get that baby out alive than dead.
So when you hear someone say how bad the situation is in the United States, think again. Does this make sense, or is this someone's spin -- or in the case of infant mortality statistics, international politics."
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/214572 (http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/214572)
As I said, can't seem to see the obvious. What kind of idiot assumes they are getting accurate statistics from all of these countries.
Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 08:51:07 AM
What the author stated is the government now has done is impose a penalty if a citizen decides to use what used to be their free will not to purchase a product. Are Canadians punished for not purchasing health care? Can they lose their property or freedom if they don't?
As the SCOTUS rationale puts it, the government does this all the time. It's called
taxing.
And interesting statistic here; the Reagan tax increases of 1982 are almost twice as large of a tax hike as the affordable care act.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
As the SCOTUS rationale puts it, the government does this all the time. It's called taxing.
And interesting statistic here; the Reagan tax increases of 1982 are almost twice as large of a tax hike as the affordable care act.
But which one has a net return, and not a drain on our treasure?
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 09:16:47 AM
But which one has a net return, and not a drain on our treasure?
That's silly. The federal deficit tripled under Reagan.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:21:19 AM
That's silly. The federal deficit tripled under Reagan.
Yet you seem to forget your history class, or did they teach you about the fact that the House was controlled by the opposing party?
Aside the fact that he accomplished what he set out to do, destroy the USSR.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 10:25:29 AM
Yet you seem to forget your history class, or did they teach you about the fact that the House was controlled by the opposing party?
Oh, the irony here... :popcorn:
Quote
Aside the fact that he accomplished what he set out to do, destroy the USSR.
First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it. Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases. Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 09:08:21 AM
As the SCOTUS rationale puts it, the government does this all the time. It's called taxing.
And interesting statistic here; the Reagan tax increases of 1982 are almost twice as large of a tax hike as the affordable care act.
Still didn't answer. Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not? Also, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not? A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016. That's on top of what they already pay. So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?
Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
Still didn't answer. Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not? Also, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not? A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016. That's on top of what they already pay. So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?
Guess what? The same damn thing that happens when you don't pay any other
TAX.
Yeah I know:
"Bbbbbbut Obama said....". Guess you can file that with all the other stuff he lied about.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Oh, the irony here... :popcorn:
First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it. Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases. Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?
Oh boy.
You may not like the idea of the United States spending "too much" on defense, but normal Americans like it. We like being safe, and sleeping at night knowing no matter what attack is launched on the US, we are protected. Don't worry, we protect Canada too, so you're welcome for that, along with our health care your elite depend on.
Regarding the spending, Reagan, unfortunately, agreed to a dollar tax for every two dollars of spending cuts. The Dems hosed him on that deal. Reagan didn't want to raise the taxes, but to get some spending cuts, which no Dem would ever dream of, he did it. You can thank the Dems for higher taxes and increased spending.
Dems need to appeal to the uneducated, like yourself, to get elected. So, by saying they will raise taxes on the achievers, they get your support. It is pretty sad.
Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
Still didn't answer. Are Canadians free to turn it down without penalty or not?
I think it depends on the province. Not that it's relevant to the point.
QuoteAlso, this tax increase on those making less than $250,000 goes against the promises made does it not? A family of four will be taxed over $2,000 in 2016. That's on top of what they already pay. So what happens if one doesn't pay up when due?
It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now? He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter. It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.
Read this:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427)
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
I think it depends on the province. Not that it's relevant to the point.
It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now? He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter. It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.
Read this:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427)
The court did not rule it a tax. Roberts did. That's it.
Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
The court did not rule it a tax. Roberts did. That's it.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_CWGYdx1rTnM%2FSjqZR4QP3VI%2FAAAAAAAAAcY%2Fry72SI218LU%2Fsemantics.png&hash=b03a563e655f382bdafd2fbe1aa06c81a5834b45)
Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:01:34 AM
The court did not rule it a tax. Roberts did. That's it.
Uh no. He simply agreed with the administration argument that it was a tax. And considering that manner in which it was passed is only used for taxes, that would also make it a tax. Likewise the fact that it will be collected by the IRS. And there is the fact that how much you pay is based upon your income. The only thing that will be accomplished by continuing to deny it's a tax, is to allow the administration to wiggle out of having to deal with the implications of its "victory".
Quote from: mdgiles on July 02, 2012, 11:30:48 AM
Uh no. He simply agreed with the administration argument that it was a tax. And considering that manner in which it was passed is only used for taxes, that would also make it a tax. Likewise the fact that it will be collected by the IRS. And there is the fact that how much you pay is based upon your income. The only thing that will be accomplished by continuing to deny it's a tax, is to allow the administration to wiggle out of having to deal with the implications of its "victory".
Then why did Roberts rewrite it into a tax?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:32:20 AM
Oh, the irony here... :popcorn:
First, this was hardly his only goal, but it was the only one that appeared to have come to fruition, and so conservatives desperately cling to it. Secondly, you can't possibly attribute the collapse of the USSR to something as simplistic as Reagan's defense increases. Thirdly, isn't it ironic that the USSR collapsed as a (partial) result of spending too much money on defense?
Son, I remember this time as if it were yesterday, in fact the majority of us on this forum lived through the Cold War era.
So please, without using an opinion piece, prove Reagan didn't bring the USSR to it's knees.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
I think it depends on the province. Not that it's relevant to the point.
It's a tax that only applies if you willfully refuse to get health insurance (ergo, it's conditional); and did Obama make that pledge in the River Styx now? He obviously meant it as a penalty, not a tax, yet the courts ruled it as the latter. It's not any willful violation of his campaign pledge.
Read this:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427)
You brought up the Canadian health care system and how the US pales in comparison. And this article was from Canada. It's not relevant because you either can't answer it or won't because it will show that Canadians are now more free then it's neighbors.
Bush Sr. And Obama can now side by side sing "read my lips".
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 11:54:10 AM
So please, without using an opinion piece, prove Reagan didn't bring the USSR to it's knees.
Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day? Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.
It's still irrelevant to the point; Obama's allegedly atrocious tax hike is actually significantly less than that of the model conservative president.
---------------------------------------------------
Quote from: republicans2 on July 02, 2012, 11:59:44 AM
You brought up the Canadian health care system and how the US pales in comparison. And this article was from Canada. It's not relevant because you either can't answer it or won't because it will show that Canadians are now more free then it's neighbors.
I've already demonstrated this. Canada spends 10% of its GDP on health care and covers 100% of its people. The States spends 17% of its GDP to actually cover less than 85% of its people. Ergo, on the cost side (
the angle that conservatives nail Obamacare on the most) the Canadian health care system is the undisputed winner.
Now; in terms of effectiveness, my link demonstrates that the US health care system is actually
more tangled in bureaucracy and less efficient than its Canadian neighbor.
So since I've established Canada's clear advantages in health care, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claims that the quality of health care in Canada is atrocious, or the waiting times are too long, or any of the other never-proven accusations lobbed at the universal health care system.
Hint: anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. I want clear statistical evidence to support the notion that a significant number of people emigrate to the US to receive health care treatment, or that the Canadian health care system is less effective. Because all the actual evidence suggests otherwise.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day? Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.
Wow, you really expect me to help you prove your claim?
You made the claim, now back it up!
You see, this is how debate actually works, you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove said claim, the onerous of duties is upon you son.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
Is this "commit every logical fallacy in the book" day? Read up on burden of proof, and then come back to prove that monkeys don't live on mars.
It's still irrelevant to the point; Obama's allegedly atrocious tax hike is actually significantly less than that of the model conservative president.
---------------------------------------------------
I've already demonstrated this. Canada spends 10% of its GDP on health care and covers 100% of its people. The States spends 17% of its GDP to actually cover less than 85% of its people. Ergo, on the cost side (the angle that conservatives nail Obamacare on the most) the Canadian health care system is the undisputed winner.
Now; in terms of effectiveness, my link demonstrates that the US health care system is actually more tangled in bureaucracy and less efficient than its Canadian neighbor.
So since I've established Canada's clear advantages in health care, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claims that the quality of health care in Canada is atrocious, or the waiting times are too long, or any of the other never-proven accusations lobbed at the universal health care system.
Hint: anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. I want clear statistical evidence to support the notion that a significant number of people emigrate to the US to receive health care treatment, or that the Canadian health care system is less effective. Because all the actual evidence suggests otherwise.
I've made no claims. Simply asked a question. If a Canadian citizen opts out of coverage, will they be taxed or even penalized? Can they lose property if the government comes after them for not paying said taxes or penalties?
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Wow, you really expect me to help you prove your claim?
You made the claim, now back it up!
You see, this is how debate actually works, you make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove said claim, the onerous of duties is upon you son.
Wrong.
You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 10:25:29 AM
Yet you seem to forget your history class, or did they teach you about the fact that the House was controlled by the opposing party?
Aside the fact that he accomplished what he set out to do, destroy the USSR.
Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim. Now prove it, please.
----------------
It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... :rolleyes:). It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.
Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people. It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service.
Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?
To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:
Quote from: Minohtar, post: 8055933, member: 2247America joins the 20th century! Woohoo! :p
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:47:46 PM
Wrong. You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:
Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim. Now prove it, please.
----------------
It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... :rolleyes:). It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.
Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people. It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service. Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?
To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:
You're asking me to prove the obvious? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?
Granted, the Soviet Union was suffering, as do all Nationalist Socialist Communist regimes, but Reagan knew this and pushed the USSR to the brink, then shoved them over the edge.
Without Reagan's plan, the USSR very well may have recovered and held it's grip, but it didn't.
From the outset, Reagan moved against détente and beyond containment, substituting the objective of encouraging "long-term political and military changes within the Soviet empire that will facilitate a more secure and peaceful world order", according to an early 1981 Pentagon defense guide. Harvard's Richard Pipes, who joined the National Security Council, advocated a new aggressive policy by which "the United States takes the long-term strategic offensive. This approach therefore contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of containment". Pipes's report was endorsed in a 1982 National Security Decision Directive that formulated the policy objective of promoting "the process of change in the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system". [The quotes from Peter Schweizer, Reagan's War.]
A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan's massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm (http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm)
Pros and cons for the health care plan.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm)
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 12:47:46 PM
Wrong. You made the claim Reagan ended the cold war, today at 10:15 pm eastern time:
Logic 101: burden of proof lies in the person to make the claim. Now prove it, please.
Find the USSR on a map. Please post the image.
Quote
It's hilarious that much of the free world already has universal health care, yet the right wing in America still wishes to keep to a backwards method of policy-making, based on delusions that we will lose our freedom and become "3rd world dictatorships" should we give in (like has happened to Canada... :rolleyes:). It's just as ridiculous as our refusal to adopt the metric system and the insane strength of the religious right.
Fact: Canada spends less money to cover more people. It's also less bureaucratic, and ranked higher on the World Health Organization in quality of service. Why do you ignore such blatant statistical evidence?
To quote an online reaction to the SCOTUS ruling:
First, Canada has a crappy health care system. Even PM Danny Williams thinks so (yet supports it like you).
Second, bringing in the free market and consumer-based products to the health care system is the solution -- not your socialist fantasy.
Quote from: Solar on July 02, 2012, 01:31:15 PM
You're asking me to prove the obvious? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?
hahaha
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 02, 2012, 07:35:48 AM
Does this mean that Canada is also a "tin-pot dictatorship and a third-world country 'wanna-be' "? I lived in Canada for five years; they spend 10% of their GDP to cover 100% of their people while we spend 15% of our GDP to cover 88% of our people. Likewise, the WHO ranks Canada's health care system as the 30th in the world, while the States lags at the 37th. Canada also has a lower infant mortality rate and fatality rate from most preventable diseases.
But just ignore the statistics; ramble incoherently about Obama, please. It's funny that, just in another thread, people accuse the left of arguing from emotion. :rolleyes:
Canada has around 50 million, while the US has over 300 million, half of which don't pay a dime in income tax. And where do you think the WHO gets their statistics? I'm sure Canada is on the up and up when it comes to records pertaining to their socialized medicine. The CBO has already predicted the costs are doubled from the original calculations. This will be a monumental mess if allowed to go forward.We already know there will be death panels, albeit not their true name, but in essence that's what they will be.Bean counters making life and death decisions. People will die while they decide their fate, but then that will be the intension. The only good that has come of this SC opinion is that it has caused a huge backlash. Obama can play the this is not a tax game, but he isn't know for his truthfulness.
Sci FI, you're a committed leftist. Where is all the money you'll need, for everything you want, supposed to come from?
Quote from: Indy on July 02, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
Canada has around 50 million, while the US has over 300 million, half of which don't pay a dime in income tax. And where do you think the WHO gets their statistics? I'm sure Canada is on the up and up when it comes to records pertaining to their socialized medicine. The CBO has already predicted the costs are doubled from the original calculations. This will be a monumental mess if allowed to go forward.We already know there will be death panels, albeit not their true name, but in essence that's what they will be.Bean counters making life and death decisions. People will die while they decide their fate, but then that will be the intension. The only good that has come of this SC opinion is that it has caused a huge backlash. Obama can play the this is not a tax game, but he isn't know for his truthfulness.
They have the craziest ranking system. No wonder libs love it. For example, for every household who can afford health care directly, they give you a lower ranking. It's the stupidest ranking system ever...
Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
They have the craziest ranking system. No wonder libs love it. For example, for every household who can afford health care directly, they give you a lower ranking. It's the stupidest ranking system ever...
Indeed the rankings are based more upon how socialist the healthcare system is, rather than on how good the healthcare is.
Quote from: taxed on July 02, 2012, 05:40:46 PM
Find the USSR on a map. Please post the image.
Funny, but stupid. That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself. Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?
Quote
First, Canada has a crappy health care system. Even PM Danny Williams thinks so (yet supports it like you).
I don't care what Danny Williams thinks. Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
Quote
Second, bringing in the free market and consumer-based products to the health care system is the solution -- not your socialist fantasy.
Prove it.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 08:30:01 AM
Funny, but stupid. That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself. Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?
When and why did the Soviet Union fall.
QuoteI don't care what Danny Williams thinks. Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
If I buy a Yugo as opposed to a Mercedes, is that "proof" that the Yugo is a "better" car. Or is it simply "proof" that the Yugo is a
CHEAPER car. You know, fewer features not quite as safe, etc. You are arguing that the Canadian system is "better" because it's cheaper. To which the obvious answer is because it offers fewer features. As usual, you want to have it both ways. So it covers everybody. If the stock answer in Canadian Healthcare is:
"take two aspirins, and I'll put your name on the waiting list", how exactly is that better? There have been a number of cases - I pointed out the death of Natasha Richardson - where Canadian rationing has caused the death of the patient. Canadian medicine rations the most common of tests carried out here in the US.
There are 7 to 9 month waits for an MRI in Canada,
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php (http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php)
something you can walk in an get in the same day here in the US.
QuoteProve it.
You prove that simply because it cost less, Canadian Healthcare is better.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 08:48:07 AM
When and why did the Soviet Union fall.
That's what I'm asking
you, Holmes.
Quote
If I buy a Yugo as opposed to a Mercedes, is that "proof" that the Yugo is a "better" car. Or is it simply "proof" that the Yugo is a CHEAPER car.
Too bad that your side sort of spews rhetoric about the unbearable costs of Obamacare every second of every news conference and ad.
Quote
You know, fewer features not quite as safe, etc. You are arguing that the Canadian system is "better" because it's cheaper.
Or maybe because the WHO rates it higher than our own?
QuoteTo which the obvious answer is because it offers fewer features.
Prove it.
QuoteAs usual, you want to have it both ways. So it covers everybody. If the stock answer in Canadian Healthcare is: "take two aspirins, and I'll put your name on the waiting list", how exactly is that better? There have been a number of cases - I pointed out the death of Natasha Richardson - where Canadian rationing has caused the death of the patient. Canadian medicine rations the most common of tests carried out here in the US. There are 7 to 9 month waits for an MRI in Canada,
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php (http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.php)
something you can walk in an get in the same day here in the US.
You prove that simply because it cost less, Canadian Healthcare is better.
And does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM
That's what I'm asking you, Holmes.
Son, you simply aren't smart enough to talk your way around me. That:
"answer a question with a question, because I don't know the answer", BS won't cut it here. If you have no idea of the most basic facts of geopolitical history, than you are simply regurgitating talking points you don't even understand.
QuoteToo bad that your side sort of spews rhetoric about the unbearable costs of Obamacare every second of every news conference and ad.
Or maybe because the WHO rates it higher than our own?
Maybe because, being better informed than you are, we know that WHO rates healthcare on the amount of government involvement in Healtcare. So a system with a large private healthcare sector - the US, rates lower than a system with a large government healthcare sector - Canada. IOW, the socialist UN rates things on a socialism scale.
QuoteProve it.
Child when we do post the links supporting our point of view you simply ignore them, I'm tired of trying to be cooperative with a mindless ideologue, so Phuck you.
QuoteAnd does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?
When you need an MRI in Canada you get placed on a waiting list. When I need an MRI here in the US, my doctor simply gives me a list of sites affiliate with his practice and a prescription/consult on what he would like done.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM
Prove it.
For someone with all the answers, you sure have a problem debating.
When stumped, you simply sidestep the question, and shout "Prove It" as if this somehow palliates you from actually disproving the point.
Then when proof is granted, you simply ignore the post and move onto the next, only to proclaim victory by shouting "Prove It".
Quote from: Solar on July 03, 2012, 09:51:37 AM
For someone with all the answers, you sure have a problem debating.
When stumped, you simply sidestep the question, and shout "Prove It" as if this somehow palliates you from actually disproving the point.
Then when proof is granted, you simply ignore the post and move onto the next, only to proclaim victory by shouting "Prove It".
Why are you surprised? The lib/prog approach to everything is to force someone else to do the heavy lifting. "Other people's money," the
sine qua non of lib/prog policies, without which NONE of their programs are possible, is necessarily the product of other people's work and/or investment.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 03, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
Why are you surprised? The lib/prog approach to everything is to force someone else to do the heavy lifting. "Other people's money," the sine qua non of lib/prog policies, without which NONE of their programs are possible, is necessarily the product of other people's work and/or investment.
Surprised? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: mdgiles on July 03, 2012, 09:37:51 AM
Son, you simply aren't smart enough to talk your way around me. That: "answer a question with a question, because I don't know the answer", BS won't cut it here. If you have no idea of the most basic facts of geopolitical history, than you are simply regurgitating talking points you don't even understand.
No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim,
you're supposed to prove the damn point. Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:
The USSR does not exist.
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.
Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.
The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system. Could Reagan's policy have been a factor? Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.
Quote
Maybe because, being better informed than you are, we know that WHO rates healthcare on the amount of government involvement in Healtcare. So a system with a large private healthcare sector - the US, rates lower than a system with a large government healthcare sector - Canada. IOW, the socialist UN rates things on a socialism scale.
Ah, my bad. It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.
Quote
Child when we do post the links supporting our point of view you simply ignore them, I'm tired of trying to be cooperative with a mindless ideologue, so Phuck you.
Are you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?
Perhaps your inability to
actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here. I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures. You never answered me, predictably enough.
Quote
When you need an MRI in Canada you get placed on a waiting list. When I need an MRI here in the US, my doctor simply gives me a list of sites affiliate with his practice and a prescription/consult on what he would like done.
In fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs.
And you
still can't provide me a real study on the issue! You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.
When the hair splitting ceases we can change it to Reagan facilitated the demise of the Soviet Union and then we can move on before we all die of pedantic boredom.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 08:30:01 AM
Funny, but stupid. That the USSR no longer exists does not lead to the conclusion that your Glorious Leader Reagan destroyed it himself. Let's stop with the non sequiturs and produce something of substance, OK?
You people have internet in Canada. Start doing some research and learn about what happened.
Quote
I don't care what Danny Williams thinks. Canada spends less money to cover more people, is more efficient and is ranked higher by the WHO. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
Your system is crap. That is why Williams came here. You are having a hard time with that. In your wonderful system, you guys couldn't provide a necessary procedure to save Williams. If Williams stayed in Canada, he probably would have died.
Great system you have there!
Quote
Prove it.
While you are learning about supply and demand, and competition, you will learn why it is better. Keep studying young man...
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 09:18:32 AM
And does this statistic refer to voluntary or emergency MRIs?
hahahahahahaahahahaahaha
I feel sorry for you.
When I had to get an MRI, they scheduled me and I got in in less than a week. I did the research on what would have happened if I needed to get my procedure done in Canada. My solution: I would have gone to the US.
hahahahaha
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim, you're supposed to prove the damn point. Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:
The USSR does not exist.
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.
Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.
The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system. Could Reagan's policy have been a factor? Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.
I asked you a fairly straight forward, question:
QuoteWhen and why did the Soviet Union fall.
to which you answered:
QuoteThat's what I'm asking you, Holmes.
Your answer was bullshit. You see one of the advantages of having lived through that era - which you don't seem to have - is remembering what was said then and how things were seen at the time. Which usually differs from how they're seen after twenty years of revisionist history. The Soviet Unions collapse is only seen as "inevitable" now. Usually by the same Academics and Media types who were sure the Soviets were out performing the West in the early 80's. Gorbechev's reforms consisted of a last ditch attempt to save a dying system. The system was in crisis because if was called upon to compete in a race it couldn't win. It was being called upon to compete economically with the US, while at the same time mollifying a restive population in Eastern Europe and eventually in the Soviet Union itself. The usual Soviet method of sending in the tanks, was not going to work because this President had shown that he was quit willing to arm forces opposed to communist adventurism. That idea was very important. Other American Presidents, had stood by while the Soviets crush revolts in their sphere of influence, everywhere from East Germany to Czechoslovakia. Even when other Presidents had directly confronted Soviet backed efforts, they had always done so: "with one hand tied behind their backs". Truman wouldn't attack the Red Chinese in Red China. Johnson was careful not to bomb Soviet ships supplying the North Vietnamese regime. Carter stood by an fiddled his thumbs as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But this Reagan guy was different. He actually gave the Afghan rebels weapons to kill Russians. And Soviet society was in the midst of what Prof. Glenn Reynolds refers to as a Preference Cascade. It's the moment when people living under an unpopular regime realize that regime is also unpopular with numbers of others living under that regime. It's one of the reason's the Soviets went to such trouble to suppress dissidents. The notion that everyone hated the regime couldn't be allowed to spread.
QuoteAh, my bad. It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.
You know any number of people have recognized problems with their healthcare rankings. Anybody that wasn't utterly stupid - or a brain dead socialist ideologue - would be suspicious of a ranking that placed Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile, Morocco and Saudi Arabia a head of the United States.
QuoteThe rankings are based on an index of five factors:[1]
Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
Overall or average : 25%
Distribution or equality : 25%
Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%
Fair financial contribution : 25%
Ill just quote something from Wiki which points out flaws in the methodology:
QuoteJournalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[5] A publication by the Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[6] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[5]
Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[7] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[8] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[3]
And that was simply at the top of the page when I did a Google search on the WHO rankings.
QuoteAre you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?
Child I spent 10 years in The Suck (The Marines). I can curse for minutes at a time, when the urge hits me. And the only words repeated will be mother fucker. It's just that most of the time I try to remain civilized when debating. Although I'll admit that dealing with your stupidity, makes it more and more difficult. Oh and I use that "euphemism" because so places I post censor curse words, and sometimes no other word will do.
QuotePerhaps your inability to actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here. I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures. You never answered me, predictably enough.
If YOU read, you'd see where I pointed out a specific incident which showed that CAT SCANS AND MRI's ARE NOT PART OF ROUTINE EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE, as they are for example head trauma hear in the states. I've been to Emergency Rooms for things like falls, where I twisted an ankle, or banged a knee. I made sure to warn them that could not give me an MRI because I'm still carrying around metal from Vietnam.
QuoteIn fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs.
And in your fevered, little left wing mind, those wait times are acceptable!
QuoteAnd you still can't provide me a real study on the issue! You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.
Listen A-hole go do some of you own work for a change. Simply Google wait times for MRI's in Canada. Do you think all those varying stories are figments of somebody's imagination? And moving the goal posts is getting old also. Every five second you - and scum like you - are telling us how good healthcare is in your latest socialist utopia - until we point out all the ways in which it sucks - at which point we start to get the: "it's not so bad " crap. Jesus, in Great Britain, just keeping the hospitals clean has become an issue!
This whole Reagan debate was hilarious.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most non-conservative republicans. But people remember him as the perfect conservative.
Quote from: redlom xof on July 04, 2012, 01:02:12 AM
This whole Reagan debate was hilarious.
Ronald Reagan was one of the most non-conservative republicans. But people remember him as the perfect conservative.
More goal post moving. I remember back to when you Liberals were screaming he was a reactionary. Why is it you folks on the left assume that if you come up with something different from what you said five minutes ago, no one will notice! You know, your holding the intelligence of the right in such contempt, combined with a totally unwarranted belief in the self evident superiority of your political positions, really renders you unable to actually defend what you believe. You folks seem to believe that regurgitating the latest talking points, combined with an appeal to the authority of a biased media, is really all it takes to prevail in an argument. Well that, and the usual snide insults.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 03, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
No, you simply don't understand that when you present a claim, you're supposed to prove the damn point. Here, for example, I invite you to justify the incredible logic taxed uses to prove solar's point:
The USSR does not exist.
Therefore, Reagan destroyed the USSR.
Really, "epic fail" here doesn't even begin to describe the stupidity here.
The USSR's fall can be attributed to a large variety of factors; Gorbachev's reforms, Marshall's earlier rehabilitation of western Eruope, and the ineffectiveness of the Soviet political and economic system. Could Reagan's policy have been a factor? Perhaps, but screaming at the top of your lungs that Reagan's part in the rather inevitable collapse of the USSR atones for his tripling of the federal deficit, historic tax hikes, amnesty to illegal immigrants (and plenty of other policies that betray his conservative base), ineffectiveness at handling the AIDs epidemic and an economic policy that led to a major recession during the Bush era, is ridiculously simplifying the issue to prove a point.
Ah, my bad. It's just another organization involved in the Evil Liberal Conspiracy, which happens to control all credible scientific communities in the world.
Are you too much of a pussy to use a curse word?
Perhaps your inability to actually read what I wrote would be part of your confusion here. I specifically asked you whether or not these waiting times for MRIs are voluntary or emergency procedures. You never answered me, predictably enough.
In fact, if you were to read your own link; which I know you did not, you'd realize that this waiting time only applies to non-urgent MRIs.
And you still can't provide me a real study on the issue! You just post anecdotal accounts and sob stories and expect this to pass off as proof of anything.
:rolleyes:
I'm sure you didn't avoid my post on purpose, now did you?
Here, allow me to repeat...
You're asking me to prove the obvious? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yes or no, did the USSR collapse under Regan's watch or not?
Granted, the Soviet Union was suffering, as do all Nationalist Socialist Communist regimes, but Reagan knew this and pushed the USSR to the brink, then shoved them over the edge.
Without Reagan's plan, the USSR very well may have recovered and held it's grip, but it didn't.
From the outset, Reagan moved against détente and beyond containment, substituting the objective of encouraging "long-term political and military changes within the Soviet empire that will facilitate a more secure and peaceful world order", according to an early 1981 Pentagon defense guide. Harvard's Richard Pipes, who joined the National Security Council, advocated a new aggressive policy by which "the United States takes the long-term strategic offensive. This approach therefore contrasts with the essentially reactive and defensive strategy of containment". Pipes's report was endorsed in a 1982 National Security Decision Directive that formulated the policy objective of promoting "the process of change in the Soviet Union towards a more pluralistic political and economic system". [The quotes from Peter Schweizer, Reagan's War.]
A central instrument for putting pressure on the Soviet Union was Reagan's massive defense build-up, which raised defense spending from $134 billion in 1980 to $253 billion in 1989. This raised American defense spending to 7 percent of GDP, dramatically increasing the federal deficit. Yet in its efforts to keep up with the American defense build-up, the Soviet Union was compelled in the first half of the 1980s to raise the share of its defense spending from 22 percent to 27 percent of GDP, while it froze the production of civilian goods at 1980 levels.
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm (http://wais.stanford.edu/History/history_ussrandreagan.htm)
Quote from: taxed on July 03, 2012, 01:29:49 PM
You people have internet in Canada.
Your lack of reading comprehension makes me question whether or not you would be capable of following your own advice, as you seem to be under the impression that I live in Canada.
QuoteStart doing some research and learn about what happened.
Do some research on burden of proof.
Quote
Your system is crap. That is why Williams came here. You are having a hard time with that. In your wonderful system, you guys couldn't provide a necessary procedure to save Williams. If Williams stayed in Canada, he probably would have died.
I don't give a damn what Danny thinks.
Show me your statistics, or go home.
Quote
Great system you have there!
Yes, great system. A system that is statistically more cost effective and is rated higher by several internationally recognized health organizations. Your blind hatred of government simply prompts you to create a knee-jerk "public service = bad" generalization, so you can conveniently go back to worshiping the private sector.
Quote
While you are learning about supply and demand, and competition, you will learn why it is better. Keep studying young man...
And when you stop providing the anecdotal accounts of politicians and celebrities and start providing studies and statistical data supporting your case, maybe I'll listen.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 08:20:39 AM
Your lack of reading comprehension makes me question whether or not you would be capable of following your own advice, as you seem to be under the impression that I live in Canada.
You are too clueless to not be Canadian. Canadians are weird people.
Quote
Do some research on burden of proof.
I inherently know much more than you will ever learn. It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American. If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.
Quote
I don't give a damn what Danny thinks. Show me your statistics, or go home.
Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue. One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system. You really are funny.
Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day. I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/)
Quote
Yes, great system. A system that is statistically more cost effective and is rated higher by several internationally recognized health organizations. Your blind hatred of government simply prompts you to create a knee-jerk "public service = bad" generalization, so you can conveniently go back to worshiping the private sector.
Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw#ws)
Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.
This is too easy.
Quote
And when you stop providing the anecdotal accounts of politicians and celebrities and start providing studies and statistical data supporting your case, maybe I'll listen.
I couldn't have had my level of success in Canada. It really is that simple.
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
You are too clueless to not be Canadian. Canadians are weird people.
Tell me, when's the last time you've visited?
Your logic is, as usual, abysmal anyhow; even if all Canadians were clueless, it does not mean that all clueless people are Canadians. You clearly think with the right side of your brain.
Quote
I inherently know much more than you will ever learn. It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American. If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.
Care to actually respond to the point?
Quote
Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue. One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system. You really are funny.
Clearly, the fact that anecdotal evidence is a poor substitution for a real argument still eludes you.
Quote
Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day. I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/)
Over what kind of treatment? What demographic of people are doing this? Where is your control?
Quote
Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw#ws)
So the opinion of a simple Canadian qualifies as statistical evidence, in your warped view of burden-of-proof. Never mind that Stephen Harper had to promise Canadians that he would
not adopt our health care system in order to win office.
Quote
Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.
Our health care system is probably better for the wealthy, sure. But are you just too lazy to provide me with anything other than a comedic YouTube video detailing the opinion of a single man, or are you just under the impression that this qualifies as evidence?
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 12:45:21 PM
You are too clueless to not be Canadian. Canadians are weird people.
I inherently know much more than you will ever learn. It's a benefit for being a freedom loving, productive American. If I need advice on what Syrup goes with what waffle, then I'll give you a call.
Of course you don't care -- you're Canadian and have no clue. One of your biggest supporters for your system comes here to our system. You really are funny.
Oh, here are some statistics that Bert posted the other day. I think it was a serious post, but it is comical at the same time:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/)
Here is a Canadian talking about Canadian health care system.
ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw#ws)
Your system is a joke and ours is superior, contrary to your socialist health organizations, where all their leaders come here when they need treatment.
This is too easy.
I couldn't have had my level of success in Canada. It really is that simple.
If socialized medicine is sooo good, why did Congress refuse to participate in Hussein care?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 12:52:32 PM
Tell me, when's the last time you've visited?
Not for a while. You people seriously live in the 1980s. I love Canada, don't get me wrong, but I couldn't live there, because I have a standard of living.
Quote
Your logic is, as usual, abysmal anyhow; even if all Canadians were clueless, it does not mean that all clueless people are Canadians. You clearly think with the right side of your brain.
All Canadians are clueless.
Quote
Care to actually respond to the point?
You have no point. You are a joke. Usually when I talk with someone like you, I am talking to them while I'm looking overhead at a menu. I am a higher class because our capitalist system allowed me to succeed. You are stuck in a rut with the rest of your Canadian drones (unless you were born into money in Canada).
Quote
Clearly, the fact that anecdotal evidence is a poor substitution for a real argument still eludes you.
Genius, experience trumps all. I understand you won't buy into anything until a socialist or one of your hypocritical politicians tells it to you, but there is a reason people like myself are smarter than you. I knew how crappy the Canadian system was back when I had little money and lived with my roommate from Canada. We used to play sports all the time, and we would get injuries, but when he got injured with a fracture or something, he would NEVER go to the hospital. I always thought he was just being Mr. tough guy. I didn't understand until a few years after when we were playing some midnight basketball with another friend, and our other friend messed up his ankle very badly. We all stopped our game and went to the emergency room in the middle of the night. A few hours later after x-ray, splint, crutches, etc., our Canadian friend would not shut up how he couldn't believe we just went in there like that and got fixed. He was amazed. He sort of admitted that is why he never went to the hospital when injured, because mentally he couldn't grasp the concept of being able to just go and get it fixed. In Canada, you may heal up before you even get to see the doctor! Yes, that is one single out of a million anecdotes. I have another one when I talked with a Canadian in the US on vacation and we talked about my surgery I had and what I would have gone through to get done here what I would have taken 6 months.
Sorry dude, your system is seriously crap, and I wouldn't wish your health care system on one of my enemies.
Quote
Over what kind of treatment? What demographic of people are doing this? Where is your control?
Dude, anything. How about a simple MRI? Pets in Canada have better health care than Canadian humans! You people are seriously odd.
Quote
So the opinion of a simple Canadian qualifies as statistical evidence, in your warped view of burden-of-proof. Never mind that Stephen Harper had to promise Canadians that he would not adopt our health care system in order to win office.
He brought cameras and interviews people, genius. That's not opinion.
Quote
Our health care system is probably better for the wealthy, sure. But are you just too lazy to provide me with anything other than a comedic YouTube video detailing the opinion of a single man, or are you just under the impression that this qualifies as evidence?
Your health care system isn't good for anyone! What are you talking about "for the wealthy"??
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Your health care system isn't good for anyone! What are you talking about "for the wealthy"??
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
IN other words, when a wealthy Canadian get s injured, he hops a flight to the US for care.
Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 05:12:45 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
IN other words, when a wealthy Canadian get s injured, he hops a flight to the US for care.
5 of us from this forum could invade Canada and own it...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fcodecrackx15.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fstrange-brew.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fcodecrackx15.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fstrange-brew.jpg%255B%2Furl%255D&hash=08a5853bd47a03fbfd93da011929115e95938bcb)
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 07:06:05 PM
5 of us from this forum could invade Canada and own it...
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fcodecrackx15.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fstrange-brew.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fcodecrackx15.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fstrange-brew.jpg%255B%2Furl%255D&hash=08a5853bd47a03fbfd93da011929115e95938bcb)
Way to respect Canada's servicemen and servicewomen. Feel better now?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 07:10:05 PM
Way to respect Canada's servicemen and servicewomen. Feel better now?
Oh stop. I love Canada. It's just that I have a standard of living.
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 07:11:30 PM
Oh stop. I love Canada. It's just that I have a standard of living.
Don't backtrack on your bullshit. You just implied that the Canadian military is incompetent enough so that you and four internet posters could occupy it. Good luck on that!
Canada doesn't
need a big military, partially because they have us as a neighbor, and partially because they have no real enemies. The "America needs 30 aircraft carriers to maintain national security!" begs the question of why Costa Rica has
no standing army, is landlocked, and does just fine.
----------
Quote from: taxed on July 14, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
Not for a while. You people seriously live in the 1980s. I love Canada, don't get me wrong, but I couldn't live there, because I have a standard of living.
Oh, come on. The '80s were the years of Reagan; surely you
love those times. :rolleyes:
Quote
All Canadians are clueless.
And given that your conclusion is still incorrect given this ridiculous premise, I'll just continue to laugh at your complete inability to utilize logic 101.
Quote
You have no point. You are a joke.
The irony here is just as delicious as Solar defending Reagan's tripling of the deficit: "but the democrats controlled the house!"
QuoteUsually when I talk with someone like you, I am talking to them while I'm looking overhead at a menu. I am a higher class because our capitalist system allowed me to succeed. You are stuck in a rut with the rest of your Canadian drones (unless you were born into money in Canada).
Blah blah blah. When you say "you have no point" and then proceed to go on a completely unrelated rant
with no relevance whatsoever to health care, and then fail to grasp the irony here, you clearly never paid attention in your high school english class. Useless as liberal arts majors may be, you certainly took things too far here.
Quote
Genius, experience trumps all. I understand you won't buy into anything until a socialist or one of your hypocritical politicians tells it to you,
Not that. More like statistical data.
Quote
Sorry dude, your system is seriously crap, and I wouldn't wish your health care system on one of my enemies.
Even if waiting times for non-emergency situations were significantly longer in Canada than over here, it still beats fifteen percent of our nation
not having health insurance. Sixty percent of bankruptcies are a result of medical bills.
Quote
Dude, anything. How about a simple MRI? Pets in Canada have better health care than Canadian humans! You people are seriously odd.
Which is why the World Health Organization rates it higher than the United States, and even Stephen Harper had to
promise Canadians he would avoid an American health care system at all costs...oh, wait, the WHO is full of communists, and Canadians are idiots.
Quote
He brought cameras and interviews people, genius. That's not opinion.
I hope that you do not think interviewing "random" people on a television show is a foolproof study.
Quote
Your health care system isn't good for anyone! What are you talking about "for the wealthy"??
I'm still laughing at your insistence that "our" health care system is referring to Canada's.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:47:06 PM
Don't backtrack on your bullshit. You just implied that the Canadian military is incompetent enough so that you and four internet posters could occupy it. Good luck on that!
Canada doesn't need a big military, partially because they have us as a neighbor, and partially because they have no real enemies. The "America needs 30 aircraft carriers to maintain national security!" begs the question of why Costa Rica has no standing army, is landlocked, and does just fine.
I'm not backtracking, I really do love Canada. Canada is great to get away from civilization.
Quote
Oh, come on. The '80s were the years of Reagan; surely you love those times. :rolleyes:
I was born in '74, but I'm sure I would have loved it as an adult.
Quote
And given that your conclusion is still incorrect given this ridiculous premise, I'll just continue to laugh at your complete inability to utilize logic 101.
I'm not here to teach you history. You need to learn on your own.
Quote
The irony here is just as delicious as Solar defending Reagan's tripling of the deficit: "but the democrats controlled the house!"
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Quote
Blah blah blah. When you say "you have no point" and then proceed to go on a completely unrelated rant with no relevance whatsoever to health care, and then fail to grasp the irony here, you clearly never paid attention in your high school english class. Useless as liberal arts majors may be, you certainly took things too far here.
"English" is capitalized, Mr. Educated.
QuoteNot that. More like statistical data.
Wrong.
Quote
Even if waiting times for non-emergency situations were significantly longer in Canada than over here, it still beats fifteen percent of our nation not having health insurance. Sixty percent of bankruptcies are a result of medical bills.
First of all, they ARE significantly longer. Don't phrase it like your wait times may or may not be longer. You may be perfectly fine with your wait times, if you guys even do provide the procedure in the first place, but believe me, us Americans would be miserable under that system. Just ask these people:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/#lastPost (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/#lastPost)
Secondly, the main reason costs are high is because of government intervention. The more government is removed from the health care system, the better it becomes.
Question: are Canadian wait time longer? Yes or no? I want to see if you'll answer this straight on, or if you'll avoid it like the plague.
Quote
Which is why the World Health Organization rates it higher than the United States, and even Stephen Harper had to promise Canadians he would avoid an American health care system at all costs...oh, wait, the WHO is full of communists, and Canadians are idiots.
Yes, it is comprised of people who would come to the US for anything beyond a sprained ankle.
Learn something about the World Health Organization's ranking system before you act like you know what you're talking about:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf)
Quote
I hope that you do not think interviewing "random" people on a television show is a foolproof study.
It is another exhibit into your crappy system that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Crowder is Canadian, and those were real Canadians. I have had long talks with a few Canadian doctors. Your crappy system is no secret, I hate to tell you. Just ask Danny Williams.
Quote
I'm still laughing at your insistence that "our" health care system is referring to Canada's.
You are Canadian. You are from Canada. You come here and say how your system is better. What are you laughing about?
Quote from: taxed on July 21, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
I'm not backtracking, I really do love Canada. Canada is great to get away from civilization.
The wilds of Toronto or jungles of Vancouver a bit much, eh? I hear they're taking heads out in Newfoundland, and by God you'd better watch it around those Calgary people, they're likely to duct-tape you to the hockey-net, just to hear how loud you can scream during the playoffs.
QuoteYou are Canadian. You are from Canada. You come here and say how your system is better. What are you laughing about?
Oh,
realllllllllly? He's out of Canuckistan? Okay, that explains it......
Bumped for Sci Fi, our resident Marxist...
Quote from: taxed on July 21, 2012, 12:35:35 PM
I'm not backtracking, I really do love Canada. Canada is great to get away from civilization.
How does this justify your disrespect of the Canadian armed forces?
Quote
I was born in '74, but I'm sure I would have loved it as an adult.
Right. Because the fact that the income gap increased significantly, and the federal deficit tripled, during Reagan's time, would not have bothered you in the slightest. Never mind the fact that he secretly negotiated with terrorists
and illegal immigrants; two of the cardinal sins of Conservatism.
Quote
I'm not here to teach you history. You need to learn on your own.
Again, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Your lazy responses would work if I were disputing a given, such as what year Washington was born in. Given that you have made a complex
interpretation of history, you need to provide evidence.
Either no such evidence exists, you lack the brains to find it, or you're just too lazy to do so.
Quote
"English" is capitalized, Mr. Educated.
And this refutes my argument...how?
Quote
Wrong.
First of all, they ARE significantly longer. Don't phrase it like your wait times may or may not be longer. You may be perfectly fine with your wait times, if you guys even do provide the procedure in the first place, but believe me, us Americans would be miserable under that system. Just ask these people:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/#lastPost (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/canada%27s-health-care-is-so-good/#lastPost)
Out of how many people? The majority of Canadians are still satisfied with their health care system. In fact, Stephen Harper and his cronies had to
promise that they wouldn't adopt an American privatized health care in order to win office. The UK's health care system is so revered, they put it in the opening ceremony of the Olympics! :laugh:
Quote
Secondly, the main reason costs are high is because of government intervention. The more government is removed from the health care system, the better it becomes.
Since we've established that we're talking about cost specifically, explain why Canada
spends less money on its health care.
You love to throw out theory, and pretend that the outside world doesn't exist, and that the vast disproof of your own hypothesizes isn't real. Never mind that nations with public health care systems spend less money than we do. Just like never minding that nations with strict gun control laws have lower crime rates than the States; just
claim that gun control doesn't work!
You're like modern communist apologists, who pretend that communism is a perfectly legitimate plan, and nervously dodge questions of how the USSR and Mao-China turned out.
Quote
Question: are Canadian wait time longer? Yes or no? I want to see if you'll answer this straight on, or if you'll avoid it like the plague.
Since you haven't really provided evidence, other than non-controlled statistics, I really don't know. If
I had to guess for you, I'd say probably. But this is easily made up for by:
1. The money it saves.
2. The fact that it covers a significantly larger proportion of the populace.
Quote
Yes, it is comprised of people who would come to the US for anything beyond a sprained ankle.
Learn something about the World Health Organization's ranking system before you act like you know what you're talking about:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf)
It is another exhibit into your crappy system that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Crowder is Canadian, and those were real Canadians. I have had long talks with a few Canadian doctors. Your crappy system is no secret, I hate to tell you. Just ask Danny Williams.
Why can you never draw up statistics beyond anecdotes from random Canadians?
Quote
You are Canadian. You are from Canada. You come here and say how your system is better. What are you laughing about?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I thought I made it clear I was never born there.