http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM3f8...eature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Belial
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM3f8...eature=relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Belial
Wait I thought we invaded Iraq to bring them American style diplomacy? And fuck the metric system!
Come on now, lets keep the facts straight.. we invaded Iran to prevent the Dewey Decimal System from running ramped through the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Oh, and we thought they had donuts..
Funny about the Metric system. When I went through school in the 70s and 80s we were all being switched over to the Metric system ( ah, the Trudeau years ). So we were taught metric..but all of the adults grew up on the Imperial system. So my generation switches back and forth. Mind you...It's less now.. mainly use the Imperial system for measurements ( feet and inches ). Plus the graphics industry still deals in Imperial measurements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Not sure if younger kids only deal in Metric
That was an aside....sorry. :)
Wow, this is fucked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
Your mother would be an easy conquest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Belial
ZING!Quote:
Originally Posted by raybbaby
Canada has 3 Brigades on active. The US has 10 Divisions. Each Division is composed of 3 or more Brigades.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycanuck
In any case, we wouldn't have attacked Canada because it wasn't just about oil.
Here's an interesting watch for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57..._embedded#t=11
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...hlight=#294630Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycanuck
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...hlight=#292547
http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...hlight=#290350
Shit, the fucker's avatar even has shades too. :wink:
hmm...wonder who he is.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycanuck
That is one man's opinion. If it were just about oil, our invasion would have been different. The first thing that would have been done would have been to secure the oil fields. That isn't what happened. Greenspan may know economics, but he obviously doesn't know anything more about military strategy than any other Average Joe off the street. I don't know why people assume that because someone has a degree in X that he knows a lot about Y.
We did secure the oil fields in the first week of the invasion. But we couldn’t keep them secure. We thought we were going to be accepted as liberators. We thought that by taking out the middle man (i.e. the Iraqi government) our oil companies could deal directly with the towns and villages that provide the hard labor for working those fields. Halliburton could smell the profits. But Cheney and Halliburton thought wrongly. We weren't mistaken for liberators. After all, we weren’t. And so it took more effort than expected to keep those oil fields safe.
Bill Moyers and Alan Greenspan are two men. Indeed Greenspan explains that he is just putting to ink what everyone knows. That the Iraq War was about oil is more than one man’s opinion. Perhaps you meant to say that it’s just one opinion that almost everyone shares. Instead of securing those fields we created insecurity. We went four trillion dollars into debt because of the Iraq debacle. We actually lost more than that in Iraq because Bush started his presidency with a ten year surplus.
But more than money we lost over four thousand American lives. The number of severely incapacitated soldiers who made it home alive is tenfold that number. They will require medical treatment for the rest of their lives. But hey, VA health is socialism. Those lazy soldiers with brain injuries and no limbs should get up out their beds and work for a living, right? Four years of service and they think they deserve a lifetime of medical care!?
The nature of human kind, the norm and the expectation, is for a community to come to the aid of any member who is experiencing a personal crisis. From time immemorial we aided people whose homes were on fire. We’ve aided people whose homes have been flooded. We aid people who are being robbed or wronged. And we have aided people who are sick. It’s our duty. There is no right that says we can sit back and watch; not in the constitution and not in any religion’s scripture or in any thinker’s moral philosophy.
First off, it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine. I have not stated a position one way or the other. I have merely shown - with evidence that none of you have ever disputed - that the current American system is not as bad as many would have you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Secondly, if the Iraq War was merely about oil, then we would have done nothing BUT seize the oilfields and we would have held them against anything. We did a lot more. I'd trust Tommy Franks on this matter over Alan Greenspan.
Thirdly, we do give aid to the sick and indigent. Didn't you read my post about my friend who had no job and no car who got treatment for cancer (and was able to get SSDI - saving his apartment)?
Well, get off the fence. What is your position on "socialized medicine"? And to say that the American system is not as bad as you and many right-wingers out there would like us to believe is akin to showing that among the midgets of health care, the US might be the tallest one.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
Uh, we went there under every pretext imaginable all with the sole purpose of controlling those oil fields and making sure that supplies from that region were not interrupted. Do you really believe the public support would have been there had the administration's true reasons been revealed? And you're right: We did do a lot more. Let's see, according to the DoD's own figures, 95,000 Iraqis died via this country's unwarranted, unjust, and unprovoked attack. Other organizations have it at eight to ten times that figure. Now, divide any figure by 3000.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
Hmmmm, let's see. What was that latest figure that just came out that told of the tens of thousands of Americans that die each year due to the lack of insurance? You're not going anecdotal on us here are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
You're all heart.
The war was fought because the Bush Whitehouse new about the imminent peak and terminal decline of world oil production.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
Yeah, right....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by archineer
It's rather disingenuous of you to literally accuse me of virtually accusing you of taking a position which you virtually support but literally feign not to support. Clever :wink: I'm with Realgirls4me: time for you to get off the figurative fence. We[] have one of the worst infant mortality rates and one of the worst life expectancies among the western developed nations. No other developed nation in the western tradition has so many citizens dying because they're uncovered or going bankrupt because of the illness of a family member. But hey, things aren't as bad as we think they are. After all, who wants longevity when you have to watch your children die, your family go without proper medical care and your house fall into the hands of insurance barons?Quote:
...it is rather disingenuous of you to virtually accuse me of being against socialized medicine.
We peaked in 2005, just wait and see....Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
I've shown that our infant mortality rates have little to do with health care and I've shown that, when you adjust for non-health care related deaths (like murders), the US life expectancy is the best in the world. Yet, you ignore those proofs and repeat your talking points. Do you pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your world view?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Where have you shown how many citizens are dying because they are uncovered? One thing to remember is that around a third of the uninsured in America are illegal aliens. Even the much vaunted Canadian system doesn't cover aliens. Why should America's system? And, I've shown where people die in Canada because of funding issues with their health care.
Finally, if insurance companies are so profitable, why don't you buy some stock and become an insurance baron yourself?
Who wants to profit from denying others healthcare?
Most people here don't. They'll sometimes say they do.....but they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/0...ar?pc=25&sp=50Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
Obama's ex-doctor: Insurers 'screwing it up'
Chicago physician says companies are telling doctors how to do their job.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/24/news...ion=2009092506
Attorney General's Investigation Reveals Flawed Lyme Disease Guideline Process, IDSA Agrees To Reassess Guidelines, Install Independent Arbiter
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284
Thanks. Unlike Trish, you are willing to try and back up your statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycanuck
However, I'd like to see what the methodology is and how that differs from the Institute Of Medicine study which pegged the rate at under 20,000.
Now, I wonder how many people die in Canada each year because, despite being covered, they are not funded - like those bone marrow transplants Dr. Galal mentioned in the article I cited.
Way to dodge the substantive issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You love bringing up that marrow thing and I've debated that with you. We don't see eye to eye. Move on. And as for Trish, she backs her self up more times than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by duplicatt
As for your death rate in Canada, here's a quick paragraph...
Quote:
Deaths considered preventable through health care are less frequent in Canada than in the U.S., according to a January 2008 report in the journal Health Affairs. In the study by British researchers, Canada placed sixth among 19 countries surveyed, with 77 deaths for every 100,000 people. That compared with the last-place finish of the U.S., with 110 deaths.
Health insurance companies are answerable to their shareholders. Whether the profits are small or large, they are the primary concern. Corporations will cut costs and increase revenue to secure profits, that’s the name of the game. Deductibles are going up, loopholes are exploited to drop the sick and injured from coverage, and people are denied coverage for diseases and injuries that are exempted by the fine print. Expectant mothers discover to their dismay that their plans don’t cover prenatal care, accounting for our higher rate of c-sections, higher rate of premature births and low weight newborns. The elderly discover their insurance isn’t properly tailored to their needs, because very few people can predict which disease they need to purchase insurance against. Generally it’s not evil to make a profit. Just good business. But to make a profit at the expense of someone’s health is untenable. For profit insurance and for profit health care is wrong and is leading us down the road to moral and financial disaster.
Our child mortality rates are poor and our life expectancy is low compared to other western nations. There have been no contrary demonstrations of these facts. No one posted actuarial tables? No one posted calculations? Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration.
Who wants to profit from denying others healthcare?Quote:
Finally, if insurance companies are so profitable, why don't you buy some stock and become an insurance baron yourself?
If you weren’t so keen to display your lack of wit and launch ad hominem arguments, you wouldn’t have asked the question?Quote:
Way to dodge the substantive issues.
"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
- The opening sentence of Adam Smith's book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms/tms-p1-s1-c1.htm
"Is this Adam Smith's greatest book?"
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/tms-intro.htm
I don't see a problem with health insurance companies "making a profit at the expense of someone's health" -- provided people feel they have an option to not buy the insurance or find a better alternative.
I've said something similar to this on this thread, that there is a divide in the USA between rich and poor -- a divide which is bigger than other industrialized countries. We already have Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and the poor, respectively. One simple thing we could do, I suppose, is boost funding for these, so more people are covered, but then the money has to come from somewhere. We can either raise taxes (which would be resisted) or cut some other programs (the military is a possibility). One thing we cannot continue doing is borrowing trillions of dollars.
I don't think it's fair to call the private insurance companies evil. Everyone can read the contract and refuse it. However, the powerful influence they have over politicians is a serious problem for crafting alternatives.
I am curious about the universal health care in other countries. Does it really work better than the US system, and if so why ? Are the services intrinsically cheaper ? Or do these countries spend a higher percentage of their government outlays on health care as a deliberate priority ? I'm a little too lazy to research this, but maybe someone knows.
I think that has been mentioned in here before.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrF
Nearly 1/3 of your insurance bill goes to cover paper work. Add to that the profits the insurance companies have to make + their funding of "friendly" politicians. You do the math. :wink: American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrF
Why does America have the most sick & twisted healthcare system in the developed world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsUFx...eature=channel
Sick and Wrong
How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ck_and_wrong/1
This is just getting down right scary..
http://www.breitbart.tv/shock-discov...t-elect-obama/
OOOOoooooOOOOooooo SCARY!!!! You guys will misconstrue anything to drum up
some fear won't you? Is that because your base is loaded with gullible cowards?
As long as they're afraid you can snow them into voting against their self-interest.
Thanks to Breitbart, Fox etc, Obama (who was wavering on the public option) will
certainly remember the cry of those who rallied Gamaliel way back in December 2008.
I hope he hears other, more recent, democratic protests as well. The public option is still
alive. Perhaps there's still a chance to pass a bill that will deliver us from the clutches of
private health insurance corporations. Oh was that a prayer???
Everybody in. Nobody out. Everybody in. Nobody out.
Be afraid. Obama-ites are coming to kill your grandmother. Obama-ites are coming to
get your guns. Obama-ites are coming to guarantee you health care. Obama-ites are
practicing antiphony. Be very afraid.
Trish for sum reason you made me think of:
http://designergenesdevo.files.wordp...elmer_fudd.jpg
Be werwy afwaid!
It sure is, and oh look also ALL illegal immigrants are covered too! (distant shout, "YOU LIE!).Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants, this too of false! The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." His holy Reverence Barack Obama 09/09/09
Ya think Joe Wilson might be feeling a little vindicated?
Would you care to quote some post where I have attacked anyone, much less presented an actual ad hominem? It seems that, as in the case of begging the question, you need an education in the words and phrases you are using. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by trish