virgil

vjp, i didn't call everyone on this thread inaccurate. i called you inaccurate and pointed out that all you do is continuously post comments made by people whose opinion is the same as yours and make believe that this is 'evidence' that your position is the only reasonable one. and, in an effort to prove me wrong, you go ahead and do it again. all you've done this time is post the paraphrased words of an opponent to the law- still doesn't prove anything, nothing directly outo of the law. your personal attacks are just another attempt to rally your troops on this thread. i never claimed to know the bill backward and forward, and neither should you.

Muzzy, give me a break. You're trying to compare the corporate structure to the political structure- it's apples and oranges. In the corporate world, if middle management does not like the new administrative vision, they either quit or get in line. In politics, it's quite different. Well written, but a weak example.

Virgil, if the gov't can force us to be in a healthcare program what else can they force us to buy? http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/cry.gif[/img] Then why are 26 states taking this to court to have it over turned, and why have some judges said it's unconstitutional? This is becoming an oppressive gov't we work and the gov't takes it away and makes more programs to spend our money. Like Harry Reid wanting money for Cowboy Poetry. They just don't get it and probably never will. Dave Do you not think that having so many people without health insurance costs the public already? You refer to the government taking your money away- who do you think currently pays the bill when an uninsured person receives medical care? States are taking it to court for many reasons. Some, on constitutional grounds- and they may have a case, we'll see. But, most others are doing it for purely political grandstanding. And, i think Harry Reid was trying to use an example for why he was opposed to cuts to the national endowment for the arts- he used a silly example. so, now all the wingnuts can make believe that 'cowboy poetry' is more important to democrats(i am not one) than the country's economy. have at it.

Maybe our line of difference is in how we each define 'take over'. Virgil...what do you consider a take over Maybe you're right. To me, a 'take over' of the healthcare system implies someone coming in and making clinical decisions- deciding what tests, treatments, medications are necessary; deciding what healthcare providers will be paid, deciding treatment protocols. If someone told me that the hospital where i work was being 'taken over', i would assume that there would be a shakeup in hospital administration, possibly re-organization of leadership, addition or elimination of certain programs or departments, etc. Nothing like that has been implied in the healthcare law- it's intent is to ensure access to healthcare to everyone. That just doesn't sound so devious to me.

Muzzy, again, just more of the same- articles, editorials, quotes, etc. from people whose opinions you agree with. See my last post- we can go back and forth posting the words of other people whose opinions agree with our own. My point is, and has been from the start, that statements claiming that the government is planning to 'take over' healthcare are false and intended to stir up the right.

Please be so kind as to enlighten all of us to an unbiased, non-partisan source that will prove your opinion! My opinion, like yours, can't be proven because the law hasn't even gone into effect yet. But, posting speculation to support our opinions does not make them fact. I'm in favor of assuring healthcare for everyone. Do I really need to waste both of our time surfing the web to find a few articles that will support my opinion, just for the sake of this argument? I, like you, don't know exactly how this plan will play out. But, I think it's a good start. I just think it's silly to make believe that the government is trying to take over the provision of healthcare simply because it's trying to ensure that everyone has access to it.

One thing about you Virgil you always go down with the ship. Even in the face of facts and logic you see none. Just blind obedience to a lost cause. In your opinion only the liberal democratic press prints the truth, is that your argument? Dave Dave Simple minds always seek simple answers. Again, you're happy to confuse opinions with facts. Any intelligent person knows the difference between speculation and fact. Don't state my opinion for me- I can do that myself. I think that any biased journalism should be disregarded. And, in general, editorials are understood to be one person's opinion. You and I don't know each other- if we did, you'd probably not describe me with the term 'blind obedience'. All i've done is point out where an opinion has been misrepresented as fact. The problem with guys like you is that you have a hard time making your case without using insults and accusations.

would you ever even pretend to cite an unbiased, non-partisan source?

And you will enumerate the facts for us so we can all learn how you come to such a ludicrous conclusion? http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/examiner-editorial-obamacare-even-worse-critics-thought http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms You claim I'm not citing facts, which I am, but I don't see anything in your posts but opinion. An editorial from a conservative tabloid, and a blog by David Hogberg, contributor to the American Spectator, another conservative paper, do not provide facts. They provide opinions. This is the problem as i see it- you see any opinion similar to your own as a fact. A fact is something that can be or has been proven- these examples are biased speculation at best.

A government takeover of the American healthcare sysytem is exactly what Obamacare is. The government will now force everyone into the US healthcare system, decide what the costs of all medical procedures will be, decide what insurance companies will exist and what they can charge, decide what procedures you will be entitled to regardless of what your Doctor says, decide how much the doctor gets paid, decide who gets money to go to medical school, decide what you will practice when you get out of medical school, decide who will get donated organs, who will get end of life care and who will not, decide how much prescription drugs will be, etc., etc., etc. All complete and utter nonsense- pure propaganda with zero basis in fact. On other issues, you obviously do your homework. on this one, you're just repeating what you've been fed. it's simply not true.

Aren't the ones that control the purse strings the ones that are in charge? In most cases, probably. But, not necessarily. I work with a number of donor funded programs where the donors themselves are not involved at all in operatiions. To me, when you say that they'd be in charge, you're implying that they'd be making clinical decisions, and that's simply not the case. That's where that 'death panel' nonsense came from- the people who started using that term knew that they were making false claims, but did it anyway just to rile up their base. Just propaganda.

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'? Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare. but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care. Virgil... you just don't get it do you!!!??? Instead of trying to insult me, why not address my question, if you can.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now isn't that a gov't take over? In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'? Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare. but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

Virgil, name me one federal program that ever came in on budget, just one. Just think about it, there are penalties to pay if you don't provide health care that is less than the premiums employers pay. See any problem with this not to mention all the exemptions given to the those who voted for the healthcare program. Think again you vote for it but you are exempt from it. DAH Dave i'm not following you here. why are you asking me to defend the budgets of any federal programs? my comment was specifically in regard to the false statement claiming that the government is 'taking over' healthcare.

Culver, whether it was his quote or someone else's, he obviously posted it to make a point, right? I'm not sure why you think i have blinders on for pointing out that part of his post was inaccurate. If you post it, you take responsibility for it.

Your statement about the government 'taking over' healthcare has absolutely no basis in fact. More propapanda.

I look at a man without faith as a lost soul... and if he is lost in his own life then i don't want him making decisions that affect mine. I don't worry about such a man being elected as president because I don't think he could get elected with the current acceptance of God by the majorty of people in the country. Exactly my point. It sounds as if you can 'accept' any line of thinking that it consistent with your own.

Freedom of speech does not extend to those who harm people with said speech. The right to own guns does not extend to those who harm others with said guns. Fair enough.

If and when a person of a base religious value system is elected it will be due to the majority feeling comfortable with the beliefs put forward (let's skip the electoral college topic vs majority vote). When that happens...and it will...I will still be vocal about any effort to circumvent our founding documents until done through the correct channels I think we're all probably on the same page on this one. But, that wasn't really my question.

You guys are so adament about not giving an inch regarding gun laws and 'your rights'. With that line of thought, how do you feel about the laws against someone yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theatre? Isn't that a restriction on freedom of speech?

Actually, leftists have been trying for the downfall of the "true" American Dream, freedom, individuality, equity of attainment, which doesn't necessarily mean equity in outcome, individual sovereignty (we are our own king, our home is our castle), etc. The new paradigm is to accept the globalization, and collectivization, of all people. I have a very funny feeling deep in my gut that there are at least a couple posters in this group who wouldn't have a problem with the Progressive collective American Dream as envisioned by avowed, and unrepentant, communist, Van Jones, and the Barry Hussein (WhoseInsane, or HuJinTau, take your pick) Obama-Soetoro administration. You're a joke. Tell me, when exactly were you put in charge of defining the 'American Dream'?

There is a reason why religion is known as 'the opiate of the masses'. I just don't want my leaders to be under the influence. Again, i never denied that religion and politics are and have been intermingled. I just feel that it's dangerous. It may work fine in a country where there is a state religion. But, it's not practical in a country with many groups with many different religions. And, i suspect that many of you guys would change your tune if there were someone in the White House whose religion was not in line with yours. Isn't that why so many right-wingers were trying to scare each other into believing that Obama was muslim before he was elected? I think this is another example where you guys are happy with the status quo because it falls in line with your own beliefs. Not sure you'll feel the same when we have our first President of Jewish or Muslim faith. You all confuse religion with a moral conscience. Labeling oneself as part of any particular religion does not make someone a decent person- i think we can find countless examples to make this point. You guys are funny the way you pat each other on the back for agreeing with one another. You all seem very easily threatened.

Yet, still many Americans profess ObamaCare as fixing the best system in the world? These people are referring to the skill and training of the practitioners, not the system they are working in.

you guys are funny.

Why does no one ever ask that an insane person, an idiot, moron, retard, or just plain anti-American have to be registered with the state to speak? Why can't they be precluded based on their mental non-acuity? Careful what you wish for.