PDA

View Full Version : Most of America refuses to eat right or exercise



kres24GT
02-22-2007, 04:39 PM
Let's provide them with healthcare on the tax payer dime.

Is this idea brilliant or genius?

exarmyranger
02-22-2007, 05:31 PM
Let's provide them with healthcare on the tax payer dime.

Is this idea brilliant or genius?
Yo kres,A tax (to provide healthcare)for self inflicted health problem's.like obesity,high B.P.,high colesteral,ect.may help treat those already suffering the conciquences of thier own over indulgences.But those who have not felt the effects of thier over indulgence's,or ignore thier onset,will continue,to make bad choices in foods,exorsize,and general lifestyle.So,instead of free medical,lets just outlaw fastfood chains,and replace them with Beancurd Bistros,Juice Bars,Vegetarian,Macrobionic,and Organic tufu joints.Now...is this aproach to the problem , brilliant or what?:rolleyes: ex

kres24GT
02-22-2007, 05:42 PM
Much like what you are seeing/will see with Social Security, politicians will scramble to keep this program funded, because like all government dependence programs, it will eventually fail. This is when you will see government start to ban anything unhealthy. Smoking, drinking, sugar, caffeine, all of these will eventually be outlawed.

Bill
02-22-2007, 06:25 PM
We get it dude, you hate the poor and the middle class, you only like the rich.

Only the rich should be able to get good health care, the middle class can use "Head On". And the poor can die young or go to prison, where they will get the good health care.

You love the insurance companies and think the health care system is wonderful. We get it.

kres24GT
02-22-2007, 06:35 PM
We get it dude, you hate the poor and the middle class, you only like the rich.

Only the rich should be able to get good health care, the middle class can use "Head On". And the poor can die young or go to prison, where they will get the good health care.

You love the insurance companies and think the health care system is wonderful. We get it.





So posting 8000 times about how Bush is a diabolical genius is OK, posting about people becoming responsible 8000 times means you make faulty assumptions.

exarmyranger
02-22-2007, 07:53 PM
Well kres.,unfortunatly if your correct,it means many good men gave thier lives,limbs,and(in some cases)thier connection with reality...for nothing.The "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"(slogan)will need replacing,or altered...something like "The Former Land of the free..."or The land of the "Submisive and Apathetic"...Whatever happens in the future,as far as the loss of our rights,and freedom(s).We the people are to blame not the corrupt powers within the Government.Freedom,and the liberty(s)we were Guaranteed within our Constitution,were/are nothing but words,the men whos blood was the ink used to scribe this document.Both for the people then,and the generations yet born,knew the history of civilization(s)has shown that no nation or culture,after (thru war,or threat)becoming "The Ruling Power"within thier geograghical reach.Have fallen.The Constitution/Bill of Rights was (the founders attempt to preserve our),"Republic as it stands"...Perhaps what we need is a few real patriots,like Patrick Henry,and his fellows,to rekindle/or start a new fire...Under the asses of the silent American masses!!! However my ass will be sitting on a fishing boat in the Carribean some where off the Mesquitoe Coast,or chillin with a beer on a beach in Costa Rico... :oldman: ex

Bill
02-22-2007, 09:13 PM
So posting 8000 times about how Bush is a diabolical genius is OK, posting about people becoming responsible 8000 times means you make faulty assumptions.

I don't critique the "Bush as diabolical genius" (if only) posts because I'm not that interested in that debate.

For the same reason I avoid the 9/11 topics in general.

I'm not saying to you don't post, I'm asking you to refine and develop your arguments.

Now they seem to rest mostly on your dislike of certain classes and types of people, and unless you are going to pick up the gun, or try to get a radio show, that's a weak basis for a political argument.

You can't effect political change with that as your argument.

The argument for universal health care is that the government will be able to negotiate a lower price for mass care than individuals can get for single care.

exarmyranger
02-22-2007, 09:51 PM
Yo Bill,having spent some time in two V.A.hospitals...personally I view any gov.health facility as suspect.I would just as soon my dogs veternarian preform any surgery I may require,given the choice...ex

Bill
02-22-2007, 10:18 PM
"I complained I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet.".

My point being that bad options are usually preferable to no options.

Fortunately, I don't believe anybody is proposing federal hospitals. As I understand it, the proposals are all some form of large pool quaranteed health insurance.

Altho, I've also read that the VA hospitals, for all their faults, have been able to negotiate lower prices for medicines for vets.

Betty Blowtorch
02-22-2007, 10:22 PM
Wow! Everybody says
I'm a diabolical genius!

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5927/bushbigooohhip7.png
Hey, Uncle Dick, what's diabolical mean?



http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4858/dickcheneygrrrredresizegh4.jpg
I told you to shut the fuck up, Junior.
Don't make me tell you again.

Betty Blowtorch
02-22-2007, 10:43 PM
On a more serious note, http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6859/18989qf2.gif


as an army veteran, http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5070/arte1bq1.jpg


I'm pleased as punch http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/1139/avatartakethaths4.gif
to have V.A. health care available to me.


I'd be totally screwed without it. http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9678/avatar2419ch1.gif

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 10:25 AM
I don't critique the "Bush as diabolical genius" (if only) posts because I'm not that interested in that debate.

For the same reason I avoid the 9/11 topics in general.

I'm not saying to you don't post, I'm asking you to refine and develop your arguments.

Now they seem to rest mostly on your dislike of certain classes and types of people, and unless you are going to pick up the gun, or try to get a radio show, that's a weak basis for a political argument.

You can't effect political change with that as your argument.

The argument for universal health care is that the government will be able to negotiate a lower price for mass care than individuals can get for single care.


I could care less what the argument for universal healthcare is. Is it your position it is OK for the federal government to pass unconstitutional legislation that takes away freedom from individuals simply because they believe it is in our best interest?


I wasn't talking about you on the Bush comments, merely pointing out many here do make that point over and over again.

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 10:26 AM
Yo Bill,having spent some time in two V.A.hospitals...personally I view any gov.health facility as suspect.I would just as soon my dogs veternarian preform any surgery I may require,given the choice...ex


Anyone who has experienced military healthcare should not be looking forward to any kind of government healthcare.

Tommy
02-23-2007, 12:48 PM
Let's provide them with healthcare on the tax payer dime.

Is this idea brilliant or genius?

no offense but that's a real stupid analogy

what about the kids that falls of the skateboard
he knew it skateboarding dangerous and still did it

what about the guy that has a motorcycle crash
he knew those things were dangerous


what about the guy who breaks his arm playing football on a weekend
he knew that could be dangerous

or how about the idiot that gets shot in the face on a hunting trip
obviously hunting with guns is VERY dangerous

maybe we should all come up with a plan that excludes everybody but you Kres

_______________

right now I know a family that doesn't allow their kids to play in school sports teams because they don't have health insurance and if a kid broke an arm or a leg it could bankrupt them

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 12:54 PM
maybe we should all come up with a plan that excludes everybody but you Kres





That would be great. If I can be left out of any government health care plan, you will hear no complaints form me. I'd rather die than force others to be responsible for my health care.


right now I know a family that doesn't allow their kids to play in school sports teams because they don't have health insurance and if a kid broke an arm or a leg it could bankrupt them

Having children when you can't afford healthcare is foolish. I will give them credit for being responsible enough to keep them out of sports though.

Tommy
02-23-2007, 01:00 PM
Kres, I keep reading your posts wondering if this is some sort of joke or an act

right now my health ins costs me 1527.19 a month
company's aren't gonna be able to keep paying prices and turn a profit

I bet in 10 to 15 years nobody but executives will get health ins with their job

the poor and middle class will be doomed to shorter life spans because they wont be able to afford treatment

the writing is on the wall

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 01:09 PM
Kres, I keep reading your posts wondering if this is some sort of joke or an act

right now my health ins costs me 1527.19 a month
company's aren't gonna be able to keep paying prices and turn a profit

I bet in 10 to 15 years nobody but executives will get health ins with their job

the poor and middle class will be doomed to shorter life spans because they wont be able to afford treatment

the writing is on the wall



What is your point? The poor and middle class can't afford a lot of things, the government should give them those things??

Wow, I can't wait for my yacht and private jet.

Bill
02-23-2007, 03:59 PM
What is your point? The poor and middle class can't afford a lot of things, the government should give them those things??

Wow, I can't wait for my yacht and private jet.

Kres, in rhetoric and verbal logic, what you are tryng to do here is called a "reduction to absurdity" - the verbal argument that says if you carry a position to an extreme it will lead to results that your opponent will agree is absurd. It's sometimes a useful parsuausive trick.

But what you've actually done is use the logical fallacy of the "false dilemma" or the "fallacy of the excluded middle". You're implying that the absurd MUST come true when any reasonable person would believe that it is vastly unlikely to become true. And that instead, the 'excluded middle', the position that the government could use it's large membership pool to negotiate lower health care costs for all, is much more likley than than the absurd possiblilty you suggest.

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 04:13 PM
Kres, in rhetoric and verbal logic, what you are tryng to do here is called a "reduction to absurdity" - the verbal argument that says if you carry a position to an extreme it will lead to results that your opponent will agree is absurd. It's sometimes a useful parsuausive trick.

But what you've actually done is use the logical fallacy of the "false dilemma" or the "fallacy of the excluded middle". You're implying that the absurd MUST come true when any reasonable person would believe that it is vastly unlikely to become true. And that instead, the 'excluded middle', the position that the government could use it's large membership pool to negotiate lower health care costs for all, is much more likley than than the absurd possiblilty you suggest.

You are right, it is absurd to believe government should provide things to people who cannot afford them on their own. Especially on the federal level, as this is not a power granted to the federal government by the constitution.

It's not a function of a free society to have a government that sets prices. The have no business doing so, and in fact its unconstitutional in this country to do so.


Yes the premise that its government job to lower the prices of goods and services that do not belong to us, nor do we have a right to, is absurd.

Bill
02-23-2007, 05:25 PM
This hasn't been a 'free society' since the early 1700s, and arguably since the time of the Plymouth Compact and the Jamestown Assembly.

So, you are arguing from the values of a ficticious entity. You might as well be arguing that we have to follow the rules of harry potter's hogwarts.

That's an example of reduction to absurdity that doesn't collapse into the false dilemma. There's no excluded middle, because I've just demonstrated with my first statement that your position A was not an actual position in the first place.

Now, many if not most of the proposals for improving the handling of health care have some problems, because they try to maintain the priviledges and profits of the private insurers.

The terminators plan, for instance, requiring citizens of california to buy health insurance and requiring employers to pay to a state sponsored fund if they don't provide health insurance to their employees, has the problem of 'state required participation in private business to the profit of the same private business'.

Then again, we require drivers to buy licences and pass tests and maintain relatively expensive insurance if they are to have the priviledge of driving on public roads.

So, the question becomes, does the state have a legitimate interest in it's citizens health, equivalent to it's claim of a legitimate interest in transportation?

kres24GT
02-23-2007, 05:44 PM
This hasn't been a 'free society' since the early 1700s, and arguably since the time of the Plymouth Compact and the Jamestown Assembly.

So, you are arguing from the values of a ficticious entity. You might as well be arguing that we have to follow the rules of harry potter's hogwarts.

That's an example of reduction to absurdity that doesn't collapse into the false dilemma. There's no excluded middle, because I've just demonstrated with my first statement that your position A was not an actual position in the first place.

Now, many if not most of the proposals for improving the handling of health care have some problems, because they try to maintain the priviledges and profits of the private insurers.

The terminators plan, for instance, requiring citizens of california to buy health insurance and requiring employers to pay to a state sponsored fund if they don't provide health insurance to their employees, has the problem of 'state required participation in private business to the profit of the same private business'.

Then again, we require drivers to buy licences and pass tests and maintain relatively expensive insurance if they are to have the priviledge of driving on public roads.

So, the question becomes, does the state have a legitimate interest in it's citizens health, equivalent to it's claim of a legitimate interest in transportation?



Again, you are assuming that because you believe government might can do a better job (a claim that has no foundation, and mounds of evidence against) that we should sacrifice freedom for your (or whoever's) idea. Government was never intended to work this way, and only in

Your claim that government can pass whatever always it want as long as their is some sort of semblance of a greater good is also preposterous. That is possibly the most dangerous authority one could give to government, especially one that is inhabited by mostly ignorant citizens like this one.

The Constitution clearly states that powers not given to the federal government are to be left up to the state or the individual. The constitution also says states may not pass laws that obstruct the fulfillment of contracts, meaning they have no business interfering in the contracts, verbal or written, that healthcare providers engage with individuals on.

I could sit here and rob people of their freedom all day long with crazy laws that have an underlying theme of being what is best for society.

One could easily make the argument that forcing everyone to be the same religion is best for society. One could argue that government mandated diets and exercise are what is best for society. Like I said, we could play this game all day.

Any stats or numbers you want to throw out about healthcare are irrelevant. It's unconstitutional and not a function of the government of a free society.

Caskey_91
02-25-2007, 03:51 PM
Let's provide them with healthcare on the tax payer dime.

Is this idea brilliant or genius?


There are some people who are obese due to a actual medical problem. Then there are those who just eat too much Mcdonalds. The people that get these conditions by not doing anything to prevent it should pay for their own healthcare. I've never reallly belived in the tax payers paying for healthcare at all anyway.

If anything the only healthcare we should pay for are the one's for children who's parents cannot afford it.