"You lie!" - Disrespect or expression of an opinion?

[tyflier]

If you want to may more, you are welcome to do so. You are welcome to pay my share if you feel it is so important. I just don't see why you believe you have the right to tell ME I should pay more for something YOU weant ot see happen.

I mean you in the plural sense and not the you in the "tyflier" sense. This is not a personal attack. It is an attack on the idea that Person A thinks they have a right to tell person B to pay for more programs that help Person C. If Person A really meant it, they would voluntarily GIVE more instead of supporting the thievery of it from Person B.

Even though it isn't a personal attack...it is still an unfounded attack...

Listen...when change is made, it usually involves a re-organization of taxes. Whether or not YOU pay more personally, is something I have no control over. I can vote on what changes I would like to see happen, and I can vote on how I personally believe taxes should be "divided" amongst the necessary payees. But I don't have a lot of choice when it comes to deciding what the actual tax brackets and figures amount to.

Ultimately, the tax structure IS going to change, regardless of any bills on the floor. Why? Because as I stated earlier...the Status Quo was a fallacy that simply did not work. So it's going to change. You cannot keep the status quo when it is founded entirely on myth and a false sense of security that never existed. And I, personally, cannot fathom why anyone would try.

The status quo that you yearn for was fake. It was built upon a false financial structure that never existed. YOUR stability was a myth that was spoon-fed to you while the financial institutions were reaching into your pockets for more investments.

While conservatives are crying about being robbed in the way of taxes, they are ignoring the theivary that's been going on behind closed doors for the last 15 years of "prosperity".

I'm sorry, but if you don't support the regulation of the rampantly fraudulent Wall Street crew, and if you can't support the regulation of the rampantly fraudulent insurance company practices...than you're not seeing something. Something is missing from your equation if you don't see a need for better regulations and controls over these organizations.

And unfortunately, these regulations are going to cost money to enforce. That means that yuo, me, and every other honest citizen of this great country of ours is going to see a tax increase. That sucks. But it is WAY better than what we had before...

 

[Pruddock]

To be honest, if the government feels that there should be more regulation (remember there are already some regulations on insurance companies) on healthcare insurance agencies then I feel that they should allow the states to do it. I'm much more of an advocate for individual states' responsibilities and rights than I am for the national government. Originally the states were supposed to have a lot more rights but became more and more dependent on the national government for money. I wish we could go back to more independence among the states like there used to be.

Should there be more regulation? Probably, but I still feel that there is SOO much more that goes into the healthcare industry than 99% of people really understand that will come to surface and show that insurance really can't be dropped that much.

Do I think there should be a public option? No. There is a reason that other countries are able to have socialistic healthcare and the reason IS the US. People don't understand that and I feel that the importance of innovation, R&D, and testing is overlooked in the grand scheme of things, and where most of this research occurs and why. Our healthcare system will slowly deteriorate if a public option is instilled and I could go through why again, but I really don't want to at this time.

I still advocate that I would much rather have the US government clean up the already failing bureaucratic entities like the VA healthcare and Medicare/Medicaid programs before trying to tackle private industry.

All in all, there is a reason why insurance companies can charge what they're charging and not get run out of business for charging too much. In a capitalist/free market environment like the US, don't you think that if people could charge less and get MORE business that they would? I know that if I did a study and could run a company giving out cheap healthcare without screwing people over I would DEFINITELY do it! Can you imagine how much business I would get? Unfortunately, I don't think that its possible because of how complicated the system is due to all of the different variable factors. There is so much the American people don't understand but think they understand and the includes politicians. Hell, politicians are probably the most guilty of it looking at their track record of knowing pretty much nothing about anything they're voting on (Iraq, the stimulus package, etc.) and still voting for it anyways. I wish people would realize this and stop relying on their government to do it for them.

 

[Pruddock]

Holy crap! I never thought I'd actually agree with Nanci Pelosi! I may have caught the red bug, or she's actually making sense lol :nyah:


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/wilson.resolution/index.html

 

[tyflier]

To be honest, if the government feels that there should be more regulation (remember there are already some regulations on insurance companies) on healthcare insurance agencies then I feel that they should allow the states to do it. I'm much more of an advocate for individual states' responsibilities and rights than I am for the national government. Originally the states were supposed to have a lot more rights but became more and more dependent on the national government for money. I wish we could go back to more independence among the states like there used to be.

Should there be more regulation? Probably, but I still feel that there is SOO much more that goes into the healthcare industry than 99% of people really understand that will come to surface and show that insurance really can't be dropped that much.

Do I think there should be a public option? No. There is a reason that other countries are able to have socialistic healthcare and the reason IS the US. People don't understand that and I feel that the importance of innovation, R&D, and testing is overlooked in the grand scheme of things, and where most of this research occurs and why. Our healthcare system will slowly deteriorate if a public option is instilled and I could go through why again, but I really don't want to at this time.

I still advocate that I would much rather have the US government clean up the already failing bureaucratic entities like the VA healthcare and Medicare/Medicaid programs before trying to tackle private industry.

All in all, there is a reason why insurance companies can charge what they're charging and not get run out of business for charging too much. In a capitalist/free market environment like the US, don't you think that if people could charge less and get MORE business that they would? I know that if I did a study and could run a company giving out cheap healthcare without screwing people over I would DEFINITELY do it! Can you imagine how much business I would get? Unfortunately, I don't think that its possible because of how complicated the system is due to all of the different variable factors. There is so much the American people don't understand but think they understand and the includes politicians. Hell, politicians are probably the most guilty of it looking at their track record of knowing pretty much nothing about anything they're voting on (Iraq, the stimulus package, etc.) and still voting for it anyways. I wish people would realize this and stop relying on their government to do it for them.

I don't think you're giving the American People enough cerdit, and you are definitely giving insurance companies too MUCH credit.

I can tell you one thing that most Americans don't know...most don't know that it is currently policy to deny all non-emergency and non-immediate claims, and wait for the customer to go through the appeals process. Why? Because most don't bother reading their policy, understanding their policy, and taking the time and steps necesasry to go TRHOUGH the appeals process.

Here's another thing most people don't know...it is currently policy to deny disease treatment claims based on the probability that they are pre-existing. Those that are appealed, and forcibly overturned get their reimbursement. Those that aren't...get squat. And than they get dropped.

Sure...there are costs that we aren't aware of. But that does NOT justify the fraud that has taken place within these companies for last several years. Costs and expenditures do not dictate the legality of fraud. Fraud is fraud is fraud. Supplying a reason for stealing from your customers does NOT justify the theft. Period.

And the reason insurance companies can charge what they do is because they have you convinced that they need to. It's called a monopoly, only not in the strict definition of the word. It's called price fixing...and it's fraud. So much for your free market analysis. It's mutltiple corporations get together and decide u[pon a pre-fixed annual rate increase, and work together to maximize global profits.

What it boils down to is this...There may very well be two independant bars in town. That may give you a choice of where to have your drink. But wen te owners of those two bars decide together that they are only going to serve certain kinds of beer, and they are going to charge the same price, at a pre-determined rate of increase...you lose the ideal of a free market. The people, by way of demand, no longer have a voice, because the supply is controlled as tightly as if it were a monopoly of a single corporation.

That's not a free market...no matter how you slice it.

And I won't debate the logistics of allowing states to decide independantly if they need reform. We have seen what a cluster that makes of things...like Civil Rights...oke:

 

[KJUN]

The status quo that you yearn for was fake.

No, the new Amerika where nobody is allowed to fail or suffer for their bad life choices is what is fake. It's a policy that can not survive. Attempting it is what is killing our liberties, or freedom, and our constitution.

 

[Pruddock]

I don't think you're giving the American People enough cerdit, and you are definitely giving insurance companies too MUCH credit.

I can tell you one thing that most Americans don't know...most don't know that it is currently policy to deny all non-emergency and non-immediate claims, and wait for the customer to go through the appeals process. Why? Because most don't bother reading their policy, understanding their policy, and taking the time and steps necesasry to go TRHOUGH the appeals process.

Here's another thing most people don't know...it is currently policy to deny disease treatment claims based on the probability that they are pre-existing. Those that are appealed, and forcibly overturned get their reimbursement. Those that aren't...get squat. And than they get dropped.

Sure...there are costs that we aren't aware of. But that does NOT justify the fraud that has taken place within these companies for last several years. Costs and expenditures do not dictate the legality of fraud. Fraud is fraud is fraud. Supplying a reason for stealing from your customers does NOT justify the theft. Period.

And the reason insurance companies can charge what they do is because they have you convinced that they need to. It's called a monopoly, only not in the strict definition of the word. It's called price fixing...and it's fraud. So much for your free market analysis. It's mutltiple corporations get together and decide u[pon a pre-fixed annual rate increase, and work together to maximize global profits.

What it boils down to is this...There may very well be two independant bars in town. That may give you a choice of where to have your drink. But wen te owners of those two bars decide together that they are only going to serve certain kinds of beer, and they are going to charge the same price, at a pre-determined rate of increase...you lose the ideal of a free market. The people, by way of demand, no longer have a voice, because the supply is controlled as tightly as if it were a monopoly of a single corporation.

That's not a free market...no matter how you slice it.

And I won't debate the logistics of allowing states to decide independantly if they need reform. We have seen what a cluster that makes of things...like Civil Rights...oke:

Unfortunately you can't always get everybody to price fix. That's the point of a free market economy. Somebody else is GOING to come up with a better idea that is going to be better for the community and make them more money. Are you telling me that if all of the clothing stores in the world had gotten together and price fixed, that Wal-Mart would never have emerged? And how do you KNOW that all of these things are happening? Because you found them on the internet somewhere? I still feel like there is SO much assuming going on its ridiculous.

If they were price fixing then why are they in competition with each other? And why, if I know that I can get my company more customers by dropping my prices some and acquiring more customers to make more money in the long run, don't I just drop my prices below the other guys to the point where I'm below him but still making as much as possible? These companies are in the industry to provide healthcare, but ultimately they are still in the business of making money.

I know that the insurance companies have plenty of lobbyists, but there is lobbying and fraud rampant across ALL courses of industry, the health industry is just a large one so its obviously going to have a large lobbying committee. Maybe we should look at our politicians and how easily they are persuaded by these lobbyists before giving them the golden key to the healthcare car. Aren't they the ones that are ultimately being persuaded to allow all of this evil to run rampant for so long? I think the biggest difference between you and I Chris is that I don't believe in politicians, I do believe in business and the allowance of the market to determine what happens rather than politicians.

 

[mike17l]

Unfortunately you can't always get everybody to price fix. That's the point of a free market economy. Somebody else is GOING to come up with a better idea that is going to be better for the community and make them more money. Are you telling me that if all of the clothing stores in the world had gotten together and price fixed, that Wal-Mart would never have emerged? And how do you KNOW that all of these things are happening? Because you found them on the internet somewhere? I still feel like there is SO much assuming going on its ridiculous.

If they were price fixing then why are they in competition with each other? And why, if I know that I can get my company more customers by dropping my prices some and acquiring more customers to make more money in the long run, don't I just drop my prices below the other guys to the point where I'm below him but still making as much as possible? These companies are in the industry to provide healthcare, but ultimately they are still in the business of making money.

I know that the insurance companies have plenty of lobbyists, but there is lobbying and fraud rampant across ALL courses of industry, the health industry is just a large one so its obviously going to have a large lobbying committee. Maybe we should look at our politicians and how easily they are persuaded by these lobbyists before giving them the golden key to the healthcare car. Aren't they the ones that are ultimately being persuaded to allow all of this evil to run rampant for so long? I think the biggest difference between you and I Chris is that I don't believe in politicians, I do believe in business and the allowance of the market to determine what happens rather than politicians.

Anybody want to take bets on the price of ultramel bloods in 2 months? how about next May? oke:

 

[tsst]

Wow had I known this congressman was a KKK member I would have support his ouster. Here I thought he just shouted "you lie" from the cheap seats. :shrugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/wilson.resolution/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

 

[tyflier]

Unfortunately you can't always get everybody to price fix. That's the point of a free market economy. Somebody else is GOING to come up with a better idea that is going to be better for the community and make them more money. Are you telling me that if all of the clothing stores in the world had gotten together and price fixed, that Wal-Mart would never have emerged? And how do you KNOW that all of these things are happening? Because you found them on the internet somewhere? I still feel like there is SO much assuming going on its ridiculous.

If they were price fixing then why are they in competition with each other? And why, if I know that I can get my company more customers by dropping my prices some and acquiring more customers to make more money in the long run, don't I just drop my prices below the other guys to the point where I'm below him but still making as much as possible? These companies are in the industry to provide healthcare, but ultimately they are still in the business of making money.

I know that the insurance companies have plenty of lobbyists, but there is lobbying and fraud rampant across ALL courses of industry, the health industry is just a large one so its obviously going to have a large lobbying committee. Maybe we should look at our politicians and how easily they are persuaded by these lobbyists before giving them the golden key to the healthcare car. Aren't they the ones that are ultimately being persuaded to allow all of this evil to run rampant for so long? I think the biggest difference between you and I Chris is that I don't believe in politicians, I do believe in business and the allowance of the market to determine what happens rather than politicians.

I really can't argue with you, Peyton. Nothing is perfect, and certainly whatever new plan is put in place will fall short, as well. It's just not a perfect world.

I think the only difference between the two of us on this particular issue is whose greed we want to win. You support the free market economy, which is a fantastic ideal...when it works. I support governmental control, which is a fantastic idea...when it works. Both have strong reasons to be supportive and equally strong reasons for being cynical. It's just not a perfect world.

No, the new Amerika where nobody is allowed to fail or suffer for their bad life choices is what is fake. It's a policy that can not survive. Attempting it is what is killing our liberties, or freedom, and our constitution.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The welfare institution is old in this country. And it isn't changing by very much, with this president, or the last. It is what it is, and I agree that it fails in most cases. So what do you propose? We do away with it entirely? That's not gonna work any better.

Ultimately, social services and public assistance were designed to give people a leg up when they hit hard times. It was never intended to be a life support system or a source of income for people. Unfortunately, the regulations that are designed to prevent people from taking advantage of the system, actually work better to keep people below the poverty line, instead of giving them a leg to stand on until they can walk on their own.

But really, the social welfare issue is not part of this discussion, as the current healthcare reform bill does very little to change the state of current welfare. Like I said above, it is aimed at adding options and controls into the insurance industry, not overhauling the welfare system.

I don't agree with the words you choose to use, but I agree with the idea that the current welfare system falls short. But that's not really what this is all about...

 

[tyflier]

Wow had I known this congressman was a KKK member I would have support his ouster. Here I thought he just shouted "you lie" from the cheap seats. :shrugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/wilson.resolution/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Was that dude drunk??

Perfect example of extremeists coming from both camps, wouldn't you say? I have no delusions that shouting "You Lie!" is anything more than rude. It certainly isn't going to lead to a reincarnation of a popular and publicly supported lynch mob. It would be NICE if Sen. Wilson apologized to the House for his words, publicly, on the floor. But I don't think it's fair to say that without it, a new race war is upon us. Pretty ridiculous...

 

[Pruddock]

Wow had I known this congressman was a KKK member I would have support his ouster. Here I thought he just shouted "you lie" from the cheap seats. :shrugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/wilson.resolution/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Wow freaking hilarious. Once again, when Nanci Pelosi says its over, drop it, it should be over. She's as anti-Republican as it gets and still realizes this whole thing has gotten blown a little out of proportion. He apologized, drop it. He didn't shout the N word at him. If he had done that, then I'd say he was provoking racism... Fools run rampant on the hill... :headbang:

 

[jazzgeek]

Wow had I known this congressman was a KKK member I would have support his ouster. Here I thought he just shouted "you lie" from the cheap seats. :shrugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/15/wilson.resolution/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Well, maybe not the KKK.


:shrugs:


Dale

 

[tyflier]

Well, maybe not the KKK.


:shrugs:


Dale

Gee...I'd be curious about the state of his membership, at this point. I still dno't think it's fair to say his outburst will start a race war, but...it's an interesting twist to the plot, to be certain.

Still...I'd like to see confirmation of his continued membership and support of the :Lunatics", before juding more harshly...

 

[tsst]

Well, maybe not the KKK.


:shrugs:


Dale

http://www.scv.org/whatis.php

Doesn't look quite like the left website wants it to be painted. :shrugs:

The SCV works in conjunction with other historical groups to preserve Confederate history. However, it is not affiliated with any other group. The SCV rejects any group whose actions tarnish or distort the image of the Confederate soldier or his reasons for fighting.

 

[jazzgeek]

http://www.scv.org/whatis.php

Doesn't look quite like the left website wants it to be painted. :shrugs:

Yes, let's also use The Bible to prove that The Bible is accurate and valid.

As the C&L link stated, there are two factions within the SCV; I've no problem with any group that looks to preserve their legacy and honor their dead. I definitely would have a problem with a subgroup that still sees slavery, in the 21st Century, as "benign".


Dale

 

[Pruddock]

Yes, let's also use The Bible to prove that The Bible is accurate and valid.

I understand you find it funny, but can you please leave out the sarcastic insult to my faith. I don't give you crap for not believing, please show the same respect for my beliefs.

Thanks

Payton

 

[jazzgeek]

I understand you find it funny, but can you please leave out the sarcastic insult to my faith. I don't give you crap for not believing, please show the same respect for my beliefs.

Thanks

Payton

And where have I claimed non-belief? I won't give you crap for believing, I'll give you crap for being presumptuous.

You're Welcome

Dale

(FWIW, using passages from a religious "holy book" - be it The Bible, The Quran, The Bhagavad Gita, whatever - to prove said book's validity/veracity is known as "proof-texting", and would get you a failing grade in just about any respectable Seminary/Divinity School.)

 

[tyflier]

And where have I claimed non-belief? I won't give you crap for believing, I'll give you crap for being presumptuous.

You're Welcome

Dale

(FWIW, using passages from a religious "holy book" - be it The Bible, The Quran, The Bhagavad Gita, whatever - to prove said book's validity/veracity is known as "proof-texting", and would get you a failing grade in just about any respectable Seminary/Divinity School.)

In layman's terms, it's called circular logic, and you, Payton, know that it is NOT a valid tool in debate...religous or otherwise...

 

[medusacoils]

Wayne

 

[medusacoils]

Wayne