Universal Health Care...

[Jeepster80125 0]

Well, it wasn't my list, so I wasn't exactly sure what they are proposing, but I assumed it would be something like what you say here.

I should have said 'the guy in Henry's article'.emphasis mine.

Fact-Checking the President on Health InsuranceHis tales of abuse don't stand scrutiny.By SCOTT HARRINGTONIn his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.

We can't have these insurance companies making .6%, that's way too much!

[85suited 0]

Opposition to Obama's nationalized health care plan is at its highest level to date.Rasmussen reported:Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed. Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

[85suited 0]

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.

[fireball 0]

Put another way, since I have to pay for your healthcare and you mine, should we still maintain the right to basically do whatever we want to our bodies? Does the government then have a reasonable claim to be responsible for our personal eating and physical activity habits?

When you put the government in charge of health care and therefore everyone is responsible for helping to pay for your health care, then there should be certain regulations. I don't smoke and I take care of myself. I don't want to work hard to take care of you because you choose to smoke when you do not have to do the same for me. The government does have the right to monitor these things which is one reason I am not a fan of socialized health care.

[hblask 1]

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.

The only way a no immigrant policy could be enforced is with a national ID card. Normally, Republicans are against such things. I guess anything is OK to prevent little brown people from coming here.

[hblask 1]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10583It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson's lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse. By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that "trust fund," anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom. 1. "Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." The Congressional Budget Office writes, "Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies." It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded. 2. "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." An outright falsehood, whether you use the president's noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents.

By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress.

A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as "uninsured" in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so. 3."And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage." The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper's methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000. It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label "uninsured," many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.) 4. "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy... They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." He didn't die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong. 5. "Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: "The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application." The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here. 6. Rising costs are "why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance." Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The "employer's share" of employees' health-care costs comes out of those employees' wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren't forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can't. Workers are already paying the entire bill. 7. Rising costs are "why American business that compete internationally... are at a huge disadvantage." False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers' labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama's OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument "schlocky." 8. "Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care." That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group's analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion. 9. At this point, Obama said, "These are the facts. Nobody disputes them." This comment continues Obama's already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him. 10. "[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government." In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, "In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs." The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced "would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window," but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare's reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress "aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction." Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary. 11. "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Obama's wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama's claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans." It would also cause some people to lose their coverage. 12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care "saves money." Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not." 13. "The [bogus] claim... that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens... is a lie, plain and simple." Sarah Palin claimed that Obama's "death panels" would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not "a lie, plain and simple." Most important, the substance of Palin's claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled. 14. "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." For better or worse, the president's plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll. The House Democrats' health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would "apply to" undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation "does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present." Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified. Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan. 15. "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the "government option" to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson's comment on this article.) 16. Critics of the public option would "be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects." How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors. 17. "And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients "need." Such tensions are sure to arise under the president's IMAC proposal. But even if a new program would be "administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare," it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama's address: "I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician." 18. "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future." "The plan will not add to our deficit." None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts. 19. "Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years." Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we "add it all up." The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation. Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more. 20. "The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes." Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn't a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the "individual mandate" to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance "would be equivalent to a tax or fine." If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn't pay the taxes he wants to impose on the "drug and insurance companies," he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a "big, big tax" on middle-class coalminers. 21. "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are." Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn't noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars. When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Good article. I wish someone would call him on some of these things.

[85suited 0]

Good article. I wish someone would call him on some of these things.

This is a vast right wing consipiracy out to get the President becuase he is African American. Just shut your mouth and get back to work, you have mouths to feed, others to insure and provice for

[mk 11]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/...tml?_r=1&em

[Jeepster80125 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/...tml?_r=1&em

I'm curious. Are you just going to post this link and leave without sticking around to engage anyone or voice an opinion again?It would be fantastic if you could address my post #353 in this thread. You posted a link to an Aetna representative testifying, and you never stuck around to defend yourself, the post, the link, or anything else you've said in this thread.You've been asked to clarify your position, and it seems you'd rather insult us (me) as opposed to have a rational discussion. Are you really that unsure of yourself that you can't stick around and engage in a discussion about the very links you've posted? Pretty weak buddy.Anyway, I doubt you'll be here to read this, but here goes.

And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble. We can’t go 24 years without a legitimate president — not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can’t address them rationally.

Will you clarify what you're opinion is here please mike? Regarding the first paragraph, how is this any different than what Bush was subjected to while he was president? Seriously? It seems that the tone of the article is implying that Obama is the only one to be subjected to this type of treatement. Regarding the 'Liar' comment. Henry posted 21 things that obama has in fact lied or been less than truthful about. How about you pick three things on that list of 21 and explain to everyone why Henry's article is a lie. Any three up there. It should be pretty easy right? Are you saying that congressmen don't have the right to tell the president he's a liar? Again, this same type of behavior was shown towards Bush when Pete Stark called him a liar on the floor, twice. (link) So what exactly are you trying to say is wrong? Did you even read the whole article before posting it?Let's start there.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Regarding the first paragraph, how is this any different than what Bush was subjected to while he was president? Seriously? It seems that the tone of the article is implying that Obama is the only one to be subjected to this type of treatement.

I read the whole article just in case we were handing out points for reading again.But anyway, didn't the article explicitly say that the same things happened to Bush and Clinton?

[hblask 1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/...tml?_r=1&em

I agree, we should be civil to the president and just send him our favorite pictures.EDIT: Oh, and what does this article have to do with healtchare? It seems like it would be better in the Obama scorecard thread.

[fireball 0]

This is a vast right wing consipiracy out to get the President becuase he is African American. Just shut your mouth and get back to work, you have mouths to feed, others to insure and provice for

Why is it when anyone didn't agree with President Bush's policies it was just considered a difference in political opinions, but when someone doesn't agree with President Obama it is racism. I don't care what color he is I just don't agree with his policies!

[85suited 0]

Why is it when anyone didn't agree with President Bush's policies it was just considered a difference in political opinions, but when someone doesn't agree with President Obama it is racism. I don't care what color he is I just don't agree with his policies!

agreed - and my spelling there was awful

[akoff 0]

Our Left wing of the forum has gotten pretty damn quiet here as of late...jumping off the sinking ship??

[hblask 1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/1...ce_whopper.html"As soon as I sign this bill," President Obama promised in his prime-time address to Congress, "it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick." Thunderous applause followed. It's easy to understand why - no one wants to lose their insurance coverage when they need it most. But here's a news flash: It's already illegal for insurance companies to drop patients once they become ill. It has been for over a decade. The American people should take note, as President Obama is using this non-existent crisis to justify massive federal intervention in America's health sector. Since 1997, federal regulations have prohibited insurance companies from raising a person's rates if he develops an illness. And no matter how sick a customer gets, an insurer can't drop him or refuse to renew his policy - provided he didn't lie on his application or move out of the state where his policy was issued. [continued at link]

[CaneBrain 95]

Why is it when anyone didn't agree with President Bush's policies it was just considered a difference in political opinions, but when someone doesn't agree with President Obama it is racism. I don't care what color he is I just don't agree with his policies!

Actually, the right spent much of Bush's presidency stating that anyone who disagreed with Bush's policies was unpatriotic. Same shit, different day. It would be nice if people could remember anything that happened past last week.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I read the whole article just in case we were handing out points for reading again.But anyway, didn't the article explicitly say that the same things happened to Bush and Clinton?

Since mike just posted a link and left, I am wondering why he thought to post it here, or what exactly he's even saying.That's twice now, very All_In like of him.

[Sal Paradise 57]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/hea...care/index.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_...h_care_overhaulgood news guys. the bill won't actually cost all that much itself AND it'll reduce the deficit, ALL ON ITS OWN.

[mk 11]

I'm curious.

You aren't curious. About anything.The only thing you're interested in is your own opinion, which you've managed to convince yourself is always correct, and any amount of information presented to the contrary will fail to sway you because you will either ignore its content or convince yourself that the source of said information isn't credible.You could be presented with a constant stream of irrefutable evidence that your opinion (on anything) is dead wrong, and your response would be to write a lengthy, petulant response that says nothing other than "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right, would you care to address how right I am?" It's called being blinded by ideology.I see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue because the 'discussion' that goes on here poisons the mind, and no one approaches any idea with any degree of charity. (And by that I mean Aristotle's notion of charity, not philanthropy.)

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue because the 'discussion' that goes on here poisons the mind, and no one approaches any idea with any degree of charity. (And by that I mean Aristotle's notion of charity, not philanthropy.)

If Aristotle was so charitable, then how come he's dead?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

You aren't curious. About anything.The only thing you're interested in is your own opinion, which you've managed to convince yourself is always correct, and any amount of information presented to the contrary will fail to sway you because you will either ignore its content or convince yourself that the source of said information isn't credible.You could be presented with a constant stream of irrefutable evidence that your opinion (on anything) is dead wrong, and your response would be to write a lengthy, petulant response that says nothing other than "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right, would you care to address how right I am?" It's called being blinded by ideology.I see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue because the 'discussion' that goes on here poisons the mind, and no one approaches any idea with any degree of charity. (And by that I mean Aristotle's notion of charity, not philanthropy.)

This is the most hilarious pot / kettle post the internet has ever known.

[mk 11]

This is the most hilarious pot / kettle post the internet has ever known.

i wonder if this is your opinion because your political leanings differ from minebut in fairness, i suppose this is why i don't post at all in these types of threads anymore, because there's really no way to avoid coming off as an ideologue because it always gets reduced to idiocyso yes, i'm really done nowthe circle jerk can resume

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

i wonder if this is your opinion because your political leanings differ from minebut in fairness, i suppose this is why i don't post at all in these types of threads anymore, because there's really no way to avoid coming off as an ideologue because it always gets reduced to idiocyso yes, i'm really done nowthe circle jerk can resume

No, it's my opinion of you because i've yet to see you actually attempt to debate an issue in here. There are absolutely genuinely retarded posters on the left and right in this thread, section and forum. That doesn't mean there aren't also intelligent people who have the capacity to discuss topics with an open mind. You went door to door campaigning for Obama, it's not like anyone's expecting you to suddenly call him a bad president. You are, however, one of the objectively more intelligent posters on this forum who seems to be in favor of some of the currently proposed healthcare legislation. At least, that's what I'm assuming since all you've taken the time to do is stop by and call the people who oppose it idiots. Some of us genuinely want to know why, because we haven't heard an explanation of how you can support the currently proposed legislation that isn't factually nonsense by the third or fourth sentence.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You aren't curious. About anything.The only thing you're interested in is your own opinion, which you've managed to convince yourself is always correct, and any amount of information presented to the contrary will fail to sway you because you will either ignore its content or convince yourself that the source of said information isn't credible.You could be presented with a constant stream of irrefutable evidence that your opinion (on anything) is dead wrong, and your response would be to write a lengthy, petulant response that says nothing other than "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right, would you care to address how right I am?" It's called being blinded by ideology.I see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue because the 'discussion' that goes on here poisons the mind, and no one approaches any idea with any degree of charity. (And by that I mean Aristotle's notion of charity, not philanthropy.)

Seriously?You admit that you "see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue"Then why the hell are you posting in this forum in the first place - to charitably consider other ideas?We should all consider your Ideas and be swayed by your irrefutable evidence, but you refuse to engage in any debate.Your post made my Hypocricy Detector overload.