Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

So you are not saying that they WILL exist these death panels but you are saying that they WILL LIKELY exist. That is not a giant difference or really a difference of any kind. It is pretty much the same exact thing. All the twisting of the English language in the world won't change that. What you said before was wrong and it still remains wrong whether you can see it or not.

 

More! I want more! Keep that BS coming to prove your ignorance.

 

And the mandates requiring the regulations say "shall be". There is not much wiggle room there.

 

The mandates! The mandates! Are coming! I'll believe it when I see it and I don't believe I'll ever see it and neither will you. If you choose to define health care rationing as death panels then there is no point in waiting. Insurance companies already do it and they do it to save themselves money.

 

That is absolutely NOT "all you wanted me to do" in this thread. Your goal has always been to misinform people about Democrats. I suggest those who are not convinced by either argument re-read this thread from the start and make their own call on what your goals have been, assuming Mt. Obstinate hasn't replaced his remarks with words that favor the statement above by then, and assuming the person can approach it from a neutral frame of mind.

I concede that David, Coin, and (almost certainly) HM will not agree with me, and assume you (and others) will bellow that it's a certainty that Moen would agree with me and should be excluded as well. I'm not as certain, but can compromise, unlike rlm.

(To the Forum) I welcome anyone's opinion (aside from the three mentioned above )on who is right or wrong here and for what. If you believe I'm wrong, so be it, I'll apologize and drop the issue.

 

Still have not found any support? BTW, I am happy to see that you have instilled me with the power "to misinform people about Democrats". Since you seen to think they need more information, I will try my best to provide all I can.

 

You wound me, IQ<1...! I offer many of the most sane and valid opinions on this forum! Additionally, I ask some of the most compelling questions but, granted, they seem to stump you. Perhaps your cognitive abilities need sharpening. Just sayin'.

 

Really? Was that necessary? It seems to me that questioning my use of the word, particularily in the way you chose to, and in light of the tone of rlm's and my ...discussion, is abrasive, and a tad condescending.

If not, if the question was an altruistic attempt to move the thread along, or the result of a genuine lack of understanding, the definition (as used) is: "tending to move in or form a group with others of the same kind."

 

You are another member of the crowd that wishes to aggitate those with dissenting beliefs. That's what makes you a jerk.

 

It was a genuine lack of understanding. Gregarious is usually given a positive spin.

Edited to add:

I apologize if I seem abrasive to you. However, if you accuse me of being abrasive, then I think you need to step back and honestly evaluate how you behave to other people. Although there are times that you behave like a reasonable person, there are many other times that you seem to enjoy causing other people discomfort if not outright pain.

 

I really think that the point was to get you to say something productive in stead of just trying to see if you could possible insult me. After going through moen's efforts for years, I have become rather amused by people who try to win arguments with personal insults. They just don't get it that it may make them feel better, but if it does anything, it only strengthens their opponent's stature.

 

I dissent, not for the reason that I smoke, but for the unintended legal consequences that would arise if that became law. Think about the fat people eat, the sugars they indulge in, think of the reluctance to exercise... think about all the things that are unhealthy, then look at the likely laws that will be formed to criminalize unhealty behavior. It's a very slippery slide your argument is on, and it has merits, but be careful what you wish for.

 

I don't wish to agitate. I simply wish those with opposing viewpoints would explain themselves in an honest, truthful and sincere manner and not go off on tangents like you do. When you go off on tangents, it really doesn't do much to support your argument. Now, it's true that I have little to no regard for your opinions since you've shown previously that you can't (A.) support your argument, (B.) present coherent ideas and (C.) debate without calling your opponent insulting names.

 

OMG! We actually agree on something. Wonder of wonders!

 

You may have a point that competition might drop the prices down, but I have serious doubts that the reduction would be more than a fleeting look at where prices shoud be, if they were ever actually lowered. The history of the Industry doesn't indicate substantial attempts at competing with other companies, except for small companies trying to enter the market. As those smaller companies grow into larger ones, once their client base is secured, they are less generous than before.

The theory that they might lower premiums if they were strictly bought individually, rather than as an option in a group plan, is unsound for this reason as well: Group plans are designed to lure companies into buying the product, and as such are sold at a reduced premium per individual in the group. Removing the ability for such large group plans lifts the necessity for that discount.

While it may be true that the Industry would therefore become more competitive with each other, I argue that they already are now, and that wouldn't change under your scenario. While I concede that some companies may decide to lower premiums in order to lure clients, I believe those discounts would come from smaller, less known companies, not the major ones, and overall prices would continue to rise as they are now.

 

I hate to break this to you, but most big companies do not "buy" health insurance - and I mean the companies who provide insurance to their employees. They actually pay the claims with their own money and pay the insurance companies to administer it. I am not too sure just where the break point is, but I would guess that any company with over 500 insured employees would likely do this.

 

But they did just that during a recent debate, when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked if "we should just let them die?" (or somesuch). Not all the crowd cheered, but a few did. I'm not agreeing that Moen's remark is 100% correct, but it also isn't 100% wrong to say some Republicans don't care if people die.

 

More proof of your unwillingness to behave in a reasonable and respectful manner.

 

How do you know that the people who cheered were Republicans?

 

More proof of your willingness to behave in an unreasonable and disrespectful manner.