An outsider watching the US health care debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

---

So, you didn't look at the article at all, then. So you have no idea if the study by the O'Neills, which is what is cited in the article for the conclusions derived, is right or not. You can't just cry that it was in Reason magazine, so it must be wrong. You have to address the DATA.

Moreover, the data on life expectancy did not come from the Reason article. But, you ignore that fact as well. It is rather clear that you are not even going to view any data that contradicts your pre-conceived notions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybbaby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

American's are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

I'm guessing both 1, and 3.

---

If 1, then I hope so. We have the third largest population in the world. And we are going to spend a lot more than the PRC or India per person.

If 3, then no. That is more like half again as much.

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

]You have to address the DATA.

---

On numerous times we've given opposing arguments to your DATA Duplicatt. When we rebut it, you hold onto it thinking we'll forget it and then you bring it up again. Like the marrow discussion. We read your data and dispute it. You keep harping on elements even though we come up with our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Hey, for the sake of argument I have granted the data and addressed the interpretation of the data. You chose to ignore that and to continue your attack. Quite the clever debater, aren’t you?

---

You said, "Links to articles in reason magazine do not constitute proof or demonstration." which neither granted the data or addressed the interpretation of it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

To say infant mortality rates in the U.S. are due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies and shouldn’t be counted, is like saying U.S. students do poorly on scholastic exams because an inordinate number of them don’t study and therefore they shouldn’t be counted. We have low birth weight babies because expectant mothers aren't covered for prenatal care. It’s the same reason we have a high rate of premature births and complications that result in surgical deliveries.

---

You never prove any of your contentions. Moreover, you misrepresent the conclusion of the study.

You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of two trained researchers over some random person with unknown credentials off the Internet.

The very form of my argument grants the premise that low birth weight babies contribute to child mortality. :roll:

Oh my I'm such a naughty girl. I don't prove my contentions. I misrepresent. I'm never the subject of an ad hominem argument.

Yes, duplicatt. You're excused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Only to the anal-retentive nit pickers of the world, Ersatz Einstein.

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field of medicine. Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off.

---

My my, arent you clever, almost qualify as a Europen...Almost! :shrug

Right, we've both taken shots, now we've got that out of the way....

Quote:

---

The world has long relied on American and British innovation in the field

---

Right, so the world doesn't just rely on American, but, American and BRITISH inovations...Which is a bit of a backtrack on your original statement, but, not back enough.

---

How nice of you to ignore the rest of that paragraph where I commented that, "Once the UK went to NHS, British innovation slacked off."

I had hoped you were an honest person interested in discussion. That omission makes it clear that you are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

---

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

]You have to address the DATA.

---

On numerous times we've given opposing arguments to your DATA Duplicatt. When we rebut it, you hold onto it thinking we'll forget it and then you bring it up again. Like the marrow discussion. We read your data and dispute it. You keep harping on elements even though we come up with our own.

---

You need to address data WITH data. You haven't done so.

You say you addressed the bone marrow transplant thing. I just went back and re-read the entire thread, Jay. The closest you come to addressing the bone marrow transplant thing is saying that you were for spending more money on health care and you said something about liver transplant wait times and try to claim that the transplants aren't done because of lack of donors. Well, you aren't in charge of spending money more. One down. Liver transplant wait times are irrelevant to bone marrow transplants. Two down. Dr. Galal says that money is the decisive issue in bone marrow transplant, not donors. Inning over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

The very form of my argument grants the premise that low birth weight babies contribute to child mortality. :roll:

Oh my I'm such a naughty girl. I don't prove my contentions. I misrepresent. I'm never the subject of an ad hominem argument.

Yes, duplicatt. You're excused.

---

Where have you proven anything, Trish?

And, as for ad hominem, I haven't done that to you.

Quote:

---

duplicatt wrote:
Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

---

Quote:

---

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up.

---

looks like debatable data to me. I agreed with your statement for one that every system has it's own drawbacks. I didn't say our system was perfect. I then followed up with the point that with a public health care service people don't need to pay $200,000 - $500,000.

Oh and then I continued to address another point that donations are also an issue. Even in the US.

Quote:

---

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

---

Further addressing that no system is perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Where have you proven anything, Trish?

---

Your contention is that the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. is explainable. It’s due to an inordinate number of low birth weight babies. If we toss those low birth weight babies from the data our infant mortality is perfectly respectable! Therefore low infant mortality shouldn’t be used as an argument for heath care reform.

It’s an amazing argument. Don’t you think? Let’s grant the premise. We have an inordinate number of low birth weight babies. Let’s even grant that if we toss those low weight babies out of the data, our infant mortality would be in alignment with other developed western nations. Okay. Now what? What rules of logic lead from these premises to the stated conclusion? There is no reference to health care in the premises, and so there can be no reference to health care in any valid logical conclusion. The argument nicely demonstrates the fallacy known as drawing a non sequitur. Viola, I’ve proven something. The above argument is logically invalid.

We have more low birth weight babies because we have more premature births ( http://hsc.virginia.edu/UVaHealth/pe...ewborn/lbw.cfm ). A primary contributor to the higher occurrence of premature births is lack of prenatal care ( http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21326_1157.asp ). Gee, why are so many expectant mothers not getting proper prenatal care? Perhaps because tens of millions of young American women can’t afford medical coverage. Perhaps because millions thought their medical insurance covered prenatal care when it didn’t. Why would we think tens of millions of young American women have no medical coverage? Because nearly fifty million Americans have no coverage. Seniors are covered by Medicaid, so the bulk of those fifty million are men and women of reproductive age.

Is this a “proof”. Of course not. I rarely claim to prove anything that isn't of a formal nature (like the form of an logical argument or a mathematical proposition). Is it a convincing argument? That’s for the reader to judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanuck

Quote:

---

duplicatt wrote:
Moreover, Canadian hospitals do not get enough funding to do all of the bone marrow transplants that are indicated.

Every system has its own drawbacks.

---

Quote:

---

You're right...we don't get enough funding. But if you lived here in the 90s you would know that that's the fault of a Conservative government who slashed more than just health care. We're still trying to fix his mess. Unfortunately he didn't listen to his voters.

According to an article I found Ontario performs 70 out of the 120 surgeries per year that need to be performed. Considering each surgery is between $200,000 - $500,000 that's pretty good. And as I said before, I would be willing to pay a lot more tax to make sure that that number of surgeries is bumped up.

---

looks like debatable data to me. I agreed with your statement for one that every system has it's own drawbacks. I didn't say our system was perfect. I then followed up with the point that with a public health care service people don't need to pay $200,000 - $500,000.

---

What is debatable about it? Do you dispute what the head of the busiest transplant centre in Ontario says?

$200-500,000 is what Ontario pays. Over 83% of Americans have health insurance (call it 50 million - which is high - uninsured in a nation of 307 million) and do not pay $200-500,000 out of pocket to get the same operation either. Another 9% will get Medicaid if they have a medical need this big - because the hospital will make them apply for it - and they will not see that bill either.

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanuck

Oh and then I continued to address another point that donations are also an issue. Even in the US.

Quote:

---

Although in the States you can go from state to state to get shorter wait lists, the fact is you still have wait lists in the States. It's 16,000 people for a liver transplant? In both cases (liver and bone marrow) the major issue is donations.

---

Further addressing that no system is perfect.

---

Dr. Galal said that the limiting issue for bone marrow transplants in Canada was money, not donors.

Furthermore, liver donations and bone marrow donations, while both can be done done with live donors, are not in the same league as each other. Donating a piece of your liver is a serious, major and possibly life threatening operation with major recovery needed. A bone marrow donation, while nothing to sneeze at, is not in the same category in terms of risk to the donor.

So, no, you haven't adequately addressed this at all, Jay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

---

Sure I'll answer. It's acceptable. I say acceptable because you completely bypassed what I said about our struggle with politicians up here. We demand more taxes be taken off. Why? Because of something else that I already mentioned...and that's that we used to have a BETTER system than the one we already have. Election after election the number 1 issue with Canadians is health care.

I've already mentioned the Harris Gov. of the 90s destroying it. That's why it's at 58%.

For pete's sake Duplicatt, what you aren't getting is that the more money that's put into the system the better the care, the better the care the healthier the nation is. You just don't understand.

Your statement of "Over 83% of Americans have health insurance" is rather misleading. Are you saying that everyone has the ease of paying insurance costs. C'mon D

Here's a quick image from the The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations based on people buying their own coverage.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthc...s/chart_10.jpg

Is this the only poll? No...but c'mon...i mean you have to realize that there are a large number of people who don't have employee medical coverage and can't afford it (or your statistic...are having a hard time affording it). You can't be that naive.

We can bat statistics and stories around all we want, you just won't get it. It's a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink: Ahahaha. If others can't see the flaw in your attempt at "logic", duplicitous, then I feel obliged to point it out to them. Anyone can read what I said anyway they like, because it still doesn't change the fact that almost 1/3 of health insurance goes to cover paperwork which the companies use to try and swindle their own customers out of the care they both need and paid for. :idea:

"Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so."

Nevermind the money the I.C.s' use to pay their lackey politicans. :twisted:

"Max Baucus, a right-leaning Democrat from Montana who has received $2,880,631 in campaign contributions from the health care industry"

"Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000)"

"It was Baucus' own committee that held the first round-table discussions on reform. In three days of hearings last May, he invited no fewer than 41 people to speak. The list featured all the usual industry hacks, including big insurers like America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Blue Cross and Aetna. It's worth noting that several of the organizations invited — including AHIP and Amgen — employ several former Baucus staffers as lobbyists, including two of his ex-chiefs of staff."

Source:
Sick and Wrong
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...sick_and_wrong

This is all part of the reason why, "Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world". :!: :!: :!:

The GOP plans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmv...layer_embedded

Haha, yeah, Grayson on the Republican plan: don't get sick.

Single payer is the best solution, but that can't even be considered in this country because too much of our politicians campaign cash comes from the health insurance industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink:

---

It is a rather simple question. And I note that you don't answer it.

If you can't be bothered to answer the very simplest questions, then why should I pay you any mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanuck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

I asked you before if you really considered 58% to be pretty good. You never answered.

---

Sure I'll answer. It's acceptable. I say acceptable because you completely bypassed what I said about our struggle with politicians up here. We demand more taxes be taken off. Why? Because of something else that I already mentioned...and that's that we used to have a BETTER system than the one we already have. Election after election the number 1 issue with Canadians is health care.

I've already mentioned the Harris Gov. of the 90s destroying it. That's why it's at 58%.

For pete's sake Duplicatt, what you aren't getting is that the more money that's put into the system the better the care, the better the care the healthier the nation is. You just don't understand.

Your statement of "Over 83% of Americans have health insurance" is rather misleading. Are you saying that everyone has the ease of paying insurance costs. C'mon D

Here's a quick image from the The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations based on people buying their own coverage.
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthc...s/chart_10.jpg

Is this the only poll? No...but c'mon...i mean you have to realize that there are a large number of people who don't have employee medical coverage and can't afford it (or your statistic...are having a hard time affording it). You can't be that naive.

We can bat statistics and stories around all we want, you just won't get it. It's a shame.

---

I'd rather be in a system that covers 83% of the people (and we know that some significant percentage of the remaining 17% are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied and so would be covered in case of medical emergency) than a system that covers everyone, but runs out of money for the last 42%.

As for the funding level, if the people of your province truly want to be taxed more to spend more on health care, then you'd vote the rascals who will not do this for you out and put in politicians who will do your bidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

I'd rather be in a system that covers 83% of the people (and we know that some significant percentage of the remaining 17% are eligible for Medicaid but have not applied and so would be covered in case of medical emergency) than a system that covers everyone, but runs out of money for the last 42%.

As for the funding level, if the people of your province truly want to be taxed more to spend more on health care, then you'd vote the rascals who will not do this for you out and put in politicians who will do your bidding.

---

You just ran over what I said about people having a hard time paying for insurance. Nice. Which brings me back to the universal health care and people not stressing about paying such exorbitant prices for insurance. But again Duplicatt....we can go back and forth until the cows come home. You just won't get the idea of universal healthcare. So....on that note, I'm going to work on my actual work and end the debate.

And as for me voting for said party. I do. I vote for the NDP. But much like your country, politicians are politicians. They lie. I would love for the NDP to be in power. And with the amount of fighting between our 2 main parties I often wonder why they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycanuck

You just won't get the idea of universal healthcare.

---

I don't consider a system where 42% of people can't get the procedures they need to be "universal," Jay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world.

---

What do you mean by that? Absolute amount? Per person? Percent of GDP?

---

It's funny how you've dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting to the medical profession itself, but somehow found the time to reply to that cherry-picked sentence. :wink:

---

It is a rather simple question. And I note that you don't answer it.

If you can't be bothered to answer the very simplest questions, then why should I pay you any mind?

---

Nice editing of my posts again, duplicitous. Pook, pook, pook. It's all three!!! Like I already fucking told you it doesn't matter how you read it.

U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...from-the-pack/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Anyone can read what I said anyway they like

---

High standard of possible care + largest population in the Western world + $350 billion to cover paperwork + big profits + bribing politicians to do their dirty work = "Americans' are spending almost twice as much on healthcare as anywhere else in the world".

DUH!!!

Now, you've racked up a large amount of your total posts on this forum on this thread alone. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you actually work for an I.C.. :wink: You seem to be pretty much replying to everyone with an opposing view to your own, yet you still dodged my posts about how the current system is both damaging and corrupting the medical profession itself. Damaging not only the doctor-patient relationship, but creating corrupt and greedy doctors in what is profession prized for it's ethics. If you can't trust a doctor, then who can you trust? This is part of why I mentioned Adam Smith and his "Theory of Moral Sentiments". There are simply some areas where the free-market should not reign.

The following link is the view of just one doctor, but all my medic friends and family are saying EXACTLY the same thing...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/24/news...ney_topstories

And the truth is that we only know a fraction of the corruption that is going on because of insurance companies in what is supposed to be a highly ethical profession...
http://www.ct.gov/AG/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

The more leeching middle-men you have in any system the more the price goes up. FACT.

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

U.S. Health Spending Breaks From the Pack
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...from-the-pack/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

---

name calling? How juvenile...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

---

name calling? How juvenile...

---

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

---

name calling? How juvenile...

---

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

---

I called out the poster that was being rude to your side. If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion.

As for hypocrisy, your side balked when I used Reason Magazine as a source - never mind that it just cited a study. Then you expect me to take Rolling Stone as an unbiased source? "It is to laugh."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

*waits to have my post edited by duplicitous again*

---

name calling? How juvenile...

---

You have CHOOSEN to align yourself with crooks and liars. You also CHOSE to try and play smart with something I said, and you are the one calling me juvenile. Hypocrite much? Now you are QQing about the way I've reacted. I'm sooo impressed. At least I'm not trying to intimidate you with a gun, huh? :wink:

---

I called out the poster that was being rude to your side. If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion.

As for hypocrisy, your side balked when I used Reason Magazine as a source - never mind that it just cited a study. Then you expect me to take Rolling Stone as an unbiased source? "It is to laugh."

---

My side? Now that is a LAUGH! :lol: I'm no slave to any political party OR ideology. :idea: The Rolling Stone article is critical of BOTH SIDES, and I posted quotes from it to prove it.

Here are some more sources for ya...

Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient
Washington Post
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...003363_pf.html

Health care in US ranks lowest among developed countries
BMJ 2008;337:a889
"The United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries, says a report published last week."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/337/jul21_1/a889

It’s The Prices, Stupid: Why The United States Is So Different From Other Countries
Health Affairs, 22, no. 3 (2003): 89-105
"These facts suggest that the difference in spending is caused mostly by higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...stract/22/3/89

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

Why Does U.S. Health Care Cost So Much? (Part II: Indefensible Administrative Costs)
By Uwe E. Reinhardt
Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economist at Princeton.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...trative-costs/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

---

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

---

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

---

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me. A nice but failed try at being deceitful again. And the only "bad name" :roll: (AMFG! :lol: ) I called you was duplicitous, so you've clearly proven me right about that AGAIN. So make your pathetic little excuses and run away now that you've clearly lost the debate. You clearly don't give a flying-fuck about your fellow Americans, and most likely never have done.

New Report Finds 86.7 Million Americans Were Uninsured at Some Point in 2007-2008
Three out of Four of Those without Health Coverage Were Uninsured for at Least Six Months
March 4, 2009
"* Four out of five (79.2 percent) of the uninsured were in working families: 69.7 percent of the families included a worker who was employed full-time, and 9.5 percent included a worker who was employed part-time."
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...uninsured.html

Holy Grail - Killer Bunny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybbaby

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc

---

Excellent -- EX-EE-LENT! Hee-hee. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybbaby

Good stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQBOK6qrEIc

---

Perhaps more Grayson's should step up and start hitting back at the nonsense coming out of the right wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

---

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

---

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

---

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

---

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

---

Truthers? You mean like Van Jones former Obama Administration Green Czar? Something tells me that the truthers aren't calling for Obama's impeachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

---

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

---

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me.

---

It may not be a direct quote, but my post of Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:03 pm contains these exact words - "If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion." - which certainly have the same overall meaning.