Obama will lose the healthcare debate

[Vladibus]

The healthcare debate will go to the people. The SC ruled the other day that the 1800's standard on not being able to sue the government over a tax until the tax went into play did not apply.

they deemed that the penalty for people not having insurance is indeed a penalty not a tax. That it does not generate revenue.

The next round of arguments came and it was the main thrust of the whole law suit.

Does government have the power under the commerce clause to force people to buy a product even if they don't wish to. That is going to take them a bit longer to decide. in which then the SC will take 30 days or so to write their opinion.

let us hope that the constitution holds otherwise the government will have the ability to force you to buy any product they want.

[Mutant Funk Drink]

The whole healthcare debate, while there are plenty of moral arguments for or against it, ultimately is an argument based on how comfortable you are with it and no clear right or wrong.

Personally, I don't think it's good for the government to force people to buy something. Taxes for some shit like cops is one thing, but I just think having the government try to act like caretakers is a negative thing. I don't want it.

[Morb]

Obama hates the fact that there even has to be a debate about any of his proposals, personally he considers it a sickening waste of time.

It'd be nice if, in the future, people would stop voting for people who hate debate in the first place. That way, we wouldn't have to waste time debating proposals that are so absurd as to be not worthy of debate in the first place.

[Cory]

This is why they should've dropped the mandate (a Republican idea, BTW) for a Public Option.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Morb

Obama hates the fact that there even has to be a debate about any of his proposals, personally he considers it a sickening waste of time.

It'd be nice if, in the future, people would stop voting for people who hate debate in the first place.

I like how you're able to read the thoughts of somone you don't even know who lives hundreds if not thousands of miles away from you. I mean, that's the only explanation I can come up with... It's not like you're so full of shit that you would talk out of your ass about what someone else "hates"? Right?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Morb

Obama hates the fact that there even has to be a debate about any of his proposals, personally he considers it a sickening waste of time.

It'd be nice if, in the future, people would stop voting for people who hate debate in the first place. That way, we wouldn't have to waste time debating proposals that are so absurd as to be not worthy of debate in the first place.

Well seeing as the right tries to intentionally confuse the voter base on the issue I agree with Obama. Having a debate against those who live in an alternate reality is a waste of time.

[ArmsMerchant]

Biggest problem with the health care reform act is how Republicans fucked it up. Polls at the time indicated that 56% of us wanted the single-payer option, which was too "Socialistic" for Republican congress members-- who now get socialized health care themselves, but do not want the people to get it.

Thanks to the bill as passed, I have to pay $1200/year for my wife to get Medicare--which provides NOTHING she was not getting already from the local clinic.

[Captain Politik]

ANYTHING besides a single payer system (Europe and rest of world)

OR a state by state system ( Romneycare) is fucking stupid and a waste of fucking time.

If that nigger Obama really fucking cared about the american people he woudl have had the balls to NOT pass the bill when he realized 50% of it is going down the drain.

Now he passed a worthless frankenstein bill and god knows how long it will take for healthcare to really happen.

That dumb nigger could have passed it his first 2 years too when D's controlled everything

[Malice]

Let's debunk some myths about health care (copy paste from a post I made somewhere else)


http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...fe-expectancy/

You cannot look at a chart or statistics and make assumptions based on superficial impressions. If you do this you will always develop idiotic views and likely end up a leftist.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Ha, also, take a look at the survival rates for your precious "large welfare states".

Let's see, a 90% survival rate for prostate cancer in the US, and a 40% rate in nirvanic Denmark. Well, at least it was "free".

This paper has great information in it: http://www.coalitionoftheobvious.com/Singlepayer.pdf

For example, the higher infant mortality rate is also a myth because of differences in how they're counted. Once again, damned lies and statistics. Once you account for differences, the US does pretty well.

Another thing the paper mentions is differences between race, which is something that most people aren't capable of rationally discussing. Blacks are bringing down the average life expectancy and raising the infant mortality rate, even when you account for things like education and income. Blaming it on racism is a complete cop-out. This difference shouldn't be surprising to anyone that's actually familiar with the lifestyle of many of these people.

More good info here from the illuminating Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/pol...s-around-world

Ha, I'm going to post this just because it's from Fox:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...th-care-myths/

It actually is a good article.

Oregon medicaid experiment: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-cannon?page=1

22K Americans dying from lack of health insurance?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rly-because-t/




What does all this show?

USA IS NUMBER ONE@!!!

USA, USA, USA!!! WE DON'T NEED YOUR GODDAMN COMMIE CRAP!

[The Pat-Man]

lol if we werent such an awesome violent bunch of people wed have the highest life expectancy period.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Ha, also, take a look at the survival rates for your precious "large welfare states".

Let's see, a 90% survival rate for prostate cancer in the US, and a 40% rate in nirvanic Denmark. Well, at least it was "free".

1. You mean like Cuba, which beats the U.S, in all of those survival rates (except 1) and yet was conveniently left-out by the article you cited?

The actual study your article was using:

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...70204508701797

See Figure 1 for the a better representation of the data, that hasn't been cherry-picked by the author. Cuba is 1st in breast cancer survival, 1st in colorectum cancer survival (women), 2nd for colorectum cancer survival (men), and 8-th in prostate cancer survival.

2. Ignoring the fact that your own statistics disproves your claim, measuring survival rates alone isn't a accurate comparison. Why? Because the point of socialized health-care isn't that it will be superior in terms of outcomes (though your own data shows it can be). The point of the socialized health-care debate is in regards to the availability of that health-care in the first place.

I can have a hospital with the best technology imaginable, with the most highly-trained doctors and surgeons in the world, and have the best survival rates in the known universe and it would mean nothing in this debate. It might be the best hospital, but that doesn't make it the best health-care system if it means only a handful of people are able to enjoy that luxury.

For example, the higher infant mortality rate is also a myth because of differences in how they're counted. Once again, damned lies and statistics. Once you account for differences, the US does pretty well.

No, it's not a myth. Your articles raise great points in regards to the differences in how those statistics are gathered. That's an excellent point; those differences do matter. However, even when those differences are accounted for, there still are differences in mortality rates. For example, there are measures that try to overcome infant mortality disparity by going to neo-natal or perinatal figures (which don't suffer from those reporting differences, or at least to a lesser extent), and the U.S. still doesn't rank on top. It ranks better, sure, but it still has problems.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...563206_eng.pdf

[Malice]

Yeah, yeah.

John Stossel questions Michael Moore on Cuban Health Care - YouTube

John Stossel questions Michael Moore on Cuban Health Care - YouTube
Video: click to display

You'll believe anything your commie buddies tell you. Really, Cuba? Give me a break.

[Malice]

https://www.google.com/search?ix=aca...ealthcare+myth

Derp, seriously Rust, you embarrass yourself.

[Rust]

What the fuck are you babbling about? How the fuck is this a myth? I'm using the very statistics cited by your own source. Are you saying the statistics cited by your own source are full of shit? If so, then that doesn't bode well for your point in the first place.

If anyone has embarassed themselves here is you, who clearly can't respond to my points and decided to dump random links to refute a claim I never made. Poisoning the well by linking to some articles debunking some horseshit Michael Moore said (as if I gave a fuck what that fat piece of shit had to say about anything) isn't going to make my points go away.

[Malice]

Those statistics are self reported and some countries can't be trusted to do that. If North Korea reported that they had the bets health outcomes in ever category, would anyone believe them?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Those statistics are self reported and some countries can't be trusted to do that. If North Korea reported that they had the bets health outcomes in ever category, would anyone believe them?

Yeah, and if that accusation alone (with no evidence to support it) where enough to refute the statistics, then you'd have no argument to begin with since your whole argument rests on trusting those very same self-reported statistics. What, we're supposed to let you choose which countries to trust and which not to? How fucking convenient.

[Malice]

OK Rust, all the leaked info about the reality of Cuban health care that doesn't line up with the reported outcomes should just be ignored. There's no connection.

[Rust]

You have information on the South American cancer registries used in this study (with international oversight), are false? Then by all means post it. Unless you have that, we're supposed to believe they are wrong because....you posted a youtube clip and a google search?

Face it, the only reason you are clinging to this straw is because you don't like the results. You had no problem accepting that the results are true and trustworthy so long as it confirmed your results. As soon as someone pointed out how the results were cherry-picked (not including countries that beat the U.S. in those categories), your only recourse is to doubt their legitimacy for only those select countries that pose a problem.

[Malice]

Well, if the Cuban system is so great, why don't other countries adopt it and receive similar results? There are very left wing developed countries, why would the citizens be against it? Why would they have trouble affording it compared to a poor country like Cuba?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Malice

Well, if the Cuban system is so great, why don't other countries adopt it and receive similar results? There are very left wing developed countries, why would the citizens be against it? Why would they have trouble affording it compared to a poor country like Cuba?

What does that have to do with the fact that your statistics don't help your point? Stop trying to change the topic.

[The Pat-Man]

lol if you trust the information coming out of cuba you is a derpster.

[Rust]

So you can't find any information that would corroborate the claim that these cancer registries are flawed? That's what I thought.

[Malice]

Cuba's Healthcare: Medical Apartheid - YouTube

Cuba's Healthcare: Medical Apartheid - YouTube
Video: click to display