- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If you dig up some sources that support you on this and learn to convey it in a balanced manner, you might actually end up convincing people of your view.
So, what's with your crutch about sources?
Because you're incapable of deriving logical conclusions from observed facts, you don't believe anyone can do it, except those persons who post it on some OTHER website?
You could try looking at the world around you and realize that the purpose of socialism in the minds of the controlling elites is the handy way it cons the masses into consolidating power that shouldn't be consolidated into the hands of those very elites you wouldn't trust to water your lawn in a rainstorm.
So, what's with your crutch about sources? Because you're incapable of deriving logical conclusions from observed facts, you don't believe anyone can do it, except those persons who post it on some OTHER website?
You could try looking at the world around you and realize that the purpose of socialism in the minds of the controlling elites is the handy way it cons the masses into consolidating power that shouldn't be consolidated into the hands of those very elites you wouldn't trust to water your lawn in a rainstorm.
Misleading. In a perfect world, single payer would be preferable. In the real world, it would not be. You have so much trouble with context.
Actually I think you do.
Organizing for America | BarackObama.com
What he is saying, is that he knows he can't get one.
I did not realize Canada was a "perfect world".... :lol:
Close, but not quite. If he was building a health care plan from the ground up, single player would be the way to go to his mind. Since this is not the case, something else is the way to go.
By the way, I did not claim, nor has Obama, that Canada is a perfect world, or that their health care system is perfect. Why do you keep having to change peoples meanings?
Read the words that I posted, then try again.
How would you have no choice in Obama's system? Is he proposing to ban all private doctors?
I'm not advocating for national health care. I think it's a ****ty idea. However, your arguments against it are just plain terrible.
From that source:
Important to tell the whole story Rev, not just the part handy for you hyper-partisan right wing types.
You've tried this before. Absent of sources, you claim that your logic prevails. Problem is, I've yet to see logic from you. Your conclusions are error-prone and show an inaccurate conclusion based on an absence of logic. Your "bookmark" points are absurd. There are plenty of things that are law that are not in the Constitution, and you "slippery slope" argument that private heathcare will be eliminated is nothing more than standard inaccurate scare tactics.
Until you can offer either evidence or logic for your positions, your positions are irrelevant.
Well why should we spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to get a 97 year old a heart transplant for them to die of natural causes in two years?! What benefit does a 97 year old give society? They live off social security and use our tax money for their health care with medicare and all that nonsense.
I think I'm gonna be sick :2sick1:
Talk about blatant ageism.
First off, in the the heart transplant scenario you mentioned, there's a good chance the 97 year old would be disqualified for surgery because of other health conditions that would make general anesthesia dangerous. But suppose that person is healthy enough to undergo transplant surgery and a donor heart is found? If that person and their family deem the benefits greater than the risks of the procedure, who the hell is anyone to say they're not deserving of their right to live if that treatment would save their life? That donor heart isn't going to do anyone else any good if it doesn't match another recipient on the transplant list or if the other match can't be cleared for the procedure.
You suggest that the elderly are parasites living off the rest of us. It's a damn good thing your parents and grandparents didn't feel that way about their own children. Those people have contributed to society all their lives, and now just because their bodies are wearing out, some people want to throw them away like so much garbage. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude! You say that the elderly aren't worth saving; that they aren't important enough because they don't contribute to society. I suggest asking those whose lives were touched by the good that these people have done over the years how important they think that person is.
I think I'm gonna be sick :2sick1:
Talk about blatant ageism.
First off, in the the heart transplant scenario you mentioned, there's a good chance the 97 year old would be disqualified for surgery because of other health conditions that would make general anesthesia dangerous. But suppose that person is healthy enough to undergo transplant surgery and a donor heart is found? If that person and their family deem the benefits greater than the risks of the procedure, who the hell is anyone to say they're not deserving of their right to live if that treatment would save their life? That donor heart isn't going to do anyone else any good if it doesn't match another recipient on the transplant list or if the other match can't be cleared for the procedure.
You suggest that the elderly are parasites living off the rest of us. It's a damn good thing your parents and grandparents didn't feel that way about their own children. Those people have contributed to society all their lives, and now just because their bodies are wearing out, some people want to throw them away like so much garbage. What a selfish, ungrateful attitude! You say that the elderly aren't worth saving; that they aren't important enough because they don't contribute to society. I suggest asking those whose lives were touched by the good that these people have done over the years how important they think that person is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?