Stuck in my old ways of thinking

[Mr VJP]

If you read what I attached you will see those articles are stating FACTS, not opinions!

You think the CATO institute is biased and right wing?

:

Please be so kind as to enlighten all of us to an unbiased, non-partisan source that will prove your opinion!

[Dave]

  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.

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

[virgil]

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.

[Mr VJP]

I'll ask nicely again.....

Please be so kind as to enlighten all of us to an unbiased, non-partisan source that will prove your opinion!

[Dave]

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.

Virgil you don't know me and my response was far from an insult. But I do notice a lot of members on this site do insult you. At times you seem to be looking for it maybe it's your way of getting attention. Especially when you use terms like (simple minds) questioning our intelligence and referring to us as you guys.

Dave

[MuzzyLoader]

Virgil... you just don't get it do you!!!???

Instead of trying to insult me, why not address my question, if you can.

Virgil… I have been told that my style is often abrasive – not by intent, but nonetheless abrasive to the receiver.  So, in order to ‘clear the air’, I apologize to you.  My intent was not to make you feel insulted – it was to provoke you into researching and thinking deeper – beyond what you currently know – to either reinforce or adjust what you had previously learned.

Many individuals MUCH more brilliant than I (and probably you too) have penned words that help us not to make the mistakes they have learned from history or has been taught to them by earlier generations. 

Here are a few examples:

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." Adrian Rogers, 1931

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me..

I choose to believe the evidence. No doubt some people will scoff at me; others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. To some degree, perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe-and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.  -- David Kaiser, Historian 

 

“Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.”  -- Douglas Adams "Last Chance to See"

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."  -- Chinese proverb.

Following is part of the text from John L. Perry's column in Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic."

“What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?  Or do they soldier on, hoping [the 2012 election will reverse the situation]? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?  Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when [a] patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."  Please note - Newsmax withdrew this column post from their website since it was first posted.

So, as all the readers of this forum can plainly see... there is reason for concern from intellectuals far greater than we about our future.

[virgil]

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.

[virgil]

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.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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.

Maybe our line of difference is in how we each define 'take over'. Virgil...what do you consider a take over

[Dave]

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.

Virgil, if the gov't can force us to be in a healthcare program what else can they force us to buy?  :'( 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

[virgil]

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.

[steve863]

OK, so if Obamacare is not to most people's liking here, exactly what should be done about the healthcare issues in this country?  Now I sure hope no one will tell us that the system as it currently stands isn't screwed up and getting worse all the time.  If you don't want government taking it over what else should be done? I don't think anyone should assume for a minute that employers will keep covering us indefinitely with costs continuing to go thru the roof.  It won't be long before they figure out that they could hire people without providing health insurance to them and then everyone will be on their own to cough up the entire cost of the insurance.  Health coverage will go the way of the dinosaur, just like pension plans that people once got without having to put their own money into it.  I simply want to hear solutions in peoples own words here.  Just blasting Obamacare without good alternate solutions gets us nowhere. 

[MuzzyLoader]

FACT:  Before a project begins a Leader sets the Vision.  When a project begins, the entire executive team shows their support for the new project.  Of course, the CEO is also present.  Gradually, as the effort affects each of their domains, some Vice Presidents will approve changes to the overall plan, seriously impacting the schedule.  All executives must stand behind the project plan if it can have any chance for success.

Here is where Obamacare and the Administration is crumbling!  The CEO/Leader/Visionary is wavering and as I use to say regarding our past governor of NYS, "He's not only blind - he has no vision".  I believe our current Executive Branch HAS a vision... only he micromanages everything to the N-th degree instead of relying on SME's to implement the vision. 

Nobody knows the work better than those performing the work... but our Executive truly believes he has 'all the answers' for a worker... even though he has never performed the work.  OOOPs an opinion!

[virgil]

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.

[virgil]

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.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

OK, so if Obamacare is not to most people's liking here, exactly what should be done about the healthcare issues in this country?  Now I sure hope no one will tell us that the system as it currently stands isn't screwed up and getting worse all the time.  If you don't want government taking it over what else should be done? I don't think anyone should assume for a minute that employers will keep covering us indefinitely with costs continuing to go thru the roof.  It won't be long before they figure out that they could hire people without providing health insurance to them and then everyone will be on their own to cough up the entire cost of the insurance.  Health coverage will go the way of the dinosaur, just like pension plans that people once got without having to put their own money into it.  I simply want to hear solutions in peoples own words here.  Just blasting Obamacare without good alternate solutions gets us nowhere.

I think step number one in any proposed action should be tort reform. The legal cost for frivilous suits and crazy high payouts is driving the costs of provided medical care up. Tough to happen since most of our freaking  elected officials are in or have ties to the legal fields. You bring a case and it is found without merit YOU pay the legal cost of the defending party

I think there needs to be a complete revamp of the requirements to bring medications and procedures to human trial stages. We have to protect the right of the developer to turn a profit and recoup their R&D dollars or there is no incentative to develope new technology. BUT I would think an open book approach may be needed. Am I convinced the protected period for drugs is correct...no...but neither is their ability to basically charge what they want. In my business with the some owners.....a requirement to doing business with them is an open book policy and agreed and shared profit/savings. Develop a drug and recoup cost with an agreed profit margin.

No medical coverage provided to anyone that is NOT a US citizen or in the country illegally.

Remove the anchor baby loop hole.

No public finding to any health care institutions. We have to make them be competative.

Abled bodied will have to work for off any health care insurance value they recieve as a public assistance benefit. The days of free rides are over. At minimum wage you will perform tasks for the Govt providing the benefit...county....state.

Inmates will work. bring back the old "license plate" lines and they will have to cover any medical costs they incur in the form of an "insurance rate"....no more basketball---you will spend 8 hours a day working your benefits off (housing, food and guarding costs too)

This one is going to make me really popular. No one is guaranteed to be taken care of. let's talk about welfare babies and the women on the dole. I say give everyone a shot and a free pass for number one...we all make mistakes. but if you have #2 and you are looking for public assistance...no money for #1 or #2 unless you get your tubes tied. I am not saying you have to but you have just demonstrated your inability to be a contributing member of society.

If the Federal Govt wants to get involved they shoudl start their own insurance company...if they can operate it at costs....they can't do it with the post office so I doubt they could make it happen but if they want in and the evil insurance companies are making so much money ....why not provide their coverage at cost and administer the program using the Govt. They can'tmake it work because most in their do not have a business approach to the world

k---off my soap box

[Culvercreek hunt club]

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. 

Any of them can leave at any point in time if they do not believe they are effective in their job or not being allowed to represent their voters well.

[nyantler]

fact from the Health bill...Under the Affordable Health Care Choices Act, health insurance will be mandatory. Individuals who fail to carry adequate coverage will face a tax penalty of 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, capped at the national average premium for individual basic coverage.

[bainbridgedan]

i'm sorry to burst anybodys bubble but ny state already mandates that you buy auto insurance . so what is the differance ? they will (dems. or rep.) do what ever they want !

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, your entire block of posts on this thread amounts to calling everyone else innaccurate and presumptuous, without offering a single shred of factual evidence to back up your opinion.  So I can only assume you are suffering from a superiority complex or delusions of grandeur.

You really expect us to believe you have any idea what is in this healthcare bill?  Perhaps you should do some research before you decide you have it all figured out.

        YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS: ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number                                                                                                                                                      [table][tr][td]                    THE CARE BILL HB3200                                                                          THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL                                  Judge Kithil of  Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious                                      Please read this..... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59                                                                      JUDGE KITHIL wrote:                                                            ** Page 50/section 152:  The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

 

  **  Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an  individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic  fund transfers from those accounts.

 

  **  Page 65/section 164:  The plan will be subsidized (by the government)  for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations  (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -  ACORN).

 

  ** Page 203/line 14-15:  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.  (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

 

  ** Page 241 and 253:  Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

 

  ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient's age.

 

  **  Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital  expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

 

  **  Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning  consultations.  Those on Social Security will be required to attend an  "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

 

  ** Page 429,  line 13-25:  The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

 

  HAD ENOUGH????  Judge Kithil then goes on:

 

  "Finally,  it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of  Congress.  Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social  Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their  retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe  they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound  for their future."

 

    Honorable David Kithil

    Marble Falls,  Texas

 

  All of the above  should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your  opposition to Obamacare.[/t][/t][/td][/tr][/table]

[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.

[Mr VJP]

You see those page numbers Virgil, those are facts.  Pull the bill up yourself and prove me wrong.  You are claiming the facts I post are only opinion, yet you have posted nothing but opinion.

I think we can all see who's posts are inaccurate on this thread.

Post something from the bill to prove I'm inaccurate about anything if you can. 

Oh wait, you just admitted you don't even know what the bill even says, yet you feel you have the evidence to claim I'm inaccurate in my posts. 

Does anyone else see the fallacy in this guys posts? 

Post some proof for once.

[Mr VJP]

    In her new book, The Truth About Obamacare, Sally C.  Pipes—president of the Pacific Research Institute and an acknowledged  expert on health care reform—

(How's that for a knowledgable unbiased source Virgil?) 

- reveals what Democrats in Congress and  President Obama don't want you to know: Obamacare is even worse than  most critics suspect. Debunking the myths that the current  administration has touted, Pipes shows exactly what the new health care  law will mean for you, your family, your doctor, and your wallet. She  also reveals how, contrary to its promises, Obamacare will make health  care more expensive, limit your options, lead to deteriorating medical  care, and weaken America’s already frail economy.                       

From the Inside Flap       

This is going to hurt.

On March 23, 2010, President Barack  Obama signed into law a bill that will lead to the largest expansion of  government in the history of the United States. The Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act was more than 2,400 pages long and will  reportedly cost a cool $1 trillion over ten years, give or take a few  hundred billion.

But sticker shock is just the beginning. In The Truth about Obamacare,  Sally Pipes shows how Obama’s health care “reform” will crash into our  economy and culture with a tidal wave of regulations that, taken  together, will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and see our  doctors. How will all those changes affect you, your family, and your  fellow Americans?

Pipes goes over the bill with a fine-tooth comb,  laying out the specifics of how and why Obamacare:

* will drive the country’s health care bill ever higher, according to the government’s own economists

* empowers bureaucrats to deny coverage of cutting-edge medicines in order to save the government money

* will exacerbate our nation’s shortage of doctors—and in fact, is already causing many to close up shop

* will make health care less affordable by forbidding insurers from offering inexpensive, bare-bones policies

* ratchets up Medicare payroll taxes—and adds brand new taxes on income—interest, capital gains, and dividends

* achieves every penny of its supposed “savings” through a series of legislative and accounting gimmicks

*  creates a huge new enforcement bureaucracy—including 16,000 new IRS  agents and an astounding 159 new boards and commissions—to hound  taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, doctors, and insurers into compliance

* will still leave 23 million Americans uninsured by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Is  it too late to stop Obamacare? By no means, argues Pipes—who shows how  Americans can, and must, force its repeal. Then, she offers ten  principles for real reform that would make health care accessible  and affordable for all without destroying individual freedom, quality  treatment, medical innovation, and the economy.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Bainbridgedan....the difference in the post you made is....if you don't drive you don't need the auto insurance....to bring the healthcare law to your example.....if you breath you need auto insurance..whether you want it or not

[Mr VJP]

AAPS Executive Director, Jane Orient, M.D. also read the Patient  Protection and Affordable Care Act and summarizes her findings in an  upcoming article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.    Download the pre-publication version: www.jpands.org/vol15no3/orient.pdf.