|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 14, 2017 21:50:50 GMT
tpfkar Never mind Kimmel, what's your argument against socialized medicine while being for socialized defense? Not even getting to adventurism.
Single payer healthcare and universal coverage isn't even socialized medicine. This is why the poor fellow can't give us any Kimmel quotes. Socialized medicine would be something like the healthcare provided by the Department of Veteran affairs - government employees providing medical service payed for exclusively through tax dollars. I think anything the government does/forces is "socialized", to whatever degree. I'm just trying to find were the radioactivity is beyond semantics. Healthcare is just one of those things we now can and should make sure is done right so that people aren't facing impoverishment or unnecessary death or infirmity over lightning bolts out of the blue. And a lot of systems could be a lot more effective than what we have/had before 2008. As for Kimmel, he's been branded a liberal, so he's fair game for whatever the typical disingenuous nonsense is. eat the rich
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 7:59:47 GMT
tpfkar Never mind Kimmel, what's your argument against socialized medicine while being for socialized defense? Not even getting to adventurism. SemanticsSingle payer healthcare and universal coverage isn't even socialized medicine. This is why the poor fellow can't give us any Kimmel quotes. Socialized medicine would be something like the healthcare provided by the Department of Veteran affairs - government employees providing medical service payed for exclusively through tax dollars. Then what is an example of socialized medicine, poor fellow?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Nov 15, 2017 17:29:56 GMT
Single payer healthcare and universal coverage isn't even socialized medicine. This is why the poor fellow can't give us any Kimmel quotes. Socialized medicine would be something like the healthcare provided by the Department of Veteran affairs - government employees providing medical service payed for exclusively through tax dollars. Then what is an example of socialized medicine, poor fellow? It's three sentences. The third is an example of socialized medicine. I literally begins with "Socialized medicine would be something like..." Wow. This makes your addressing Kimmel without actually knowing what was a said a little less surprising. That was one short post.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 17:41:22 GMT
Then what is an example of socialized medicine, poor fellow? It's three sentences. The third is an example of socialized medicine. I literally begins with "Socialized medicine would be something like..." Wow. This makes your addressing Kimmel without actually knowing what was a said a little less surprising. That was one short post. I disagree. Coercing people into healthcare programs they don't want and making them pay for it would also be an example of socialized healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 15, 2017 17:45:15 GMT
I disagree. Coercing people into healthcare programs they don't want and making them pay for it would also be an example of socialized healthcare. Have you paid attention to any polls?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 17:51:09 GMT
I disagree. Coercing people into healthcare programs they don't want and making them pay for it would also be an example of socialized healthcare. Have you paid attention to any polls? What do the polls have to do with it? Okay, I'll play along. If sixty percent polled support socialized healthcare, and forty percent are against it, why should the forty percent have to be signed up for something they don't want? Even if it's only one percent, why should the one percent have to take something they don't want?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Nov 15, 2017 17:51:41 GMT
Unsurprising. It was apparent form the moment you couldn't actually offer any statement from Kimmel that you're not really sure what a socialized medicine program would look like. In any case, Kimmel's comment were regarding the Graham-Casey bill - the ACA is the one you're thinking of that "people don't want". (A little inaccurate in itself...I didn't either but many did.) Your confusion on this topic is pretty "CO2 is low" level.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 17:56:56 GMT
Unsurprising. It was apparent form the moment you couldn't actually offer any statement from Kimmel that you're not really sure what a socialized medicine program would look like. In any case, Kimmel's comment were regarding the Graham-Casey bill - the ACA is the one you're thinking of that "people don't want". (A little inaccurate in itself...I didn't either but many did.) Your confusion on this topic is pretty "CO2 is low" level. I never said I was "not really sure," laughing boy. I wanted to hear your own personal definition. Now I know you define socialized as government-funded. On another website some years ago there was a guy who argued with me at length that Obamacare wasn't socialized healthcare, and people only thought it was socialized healthcare. I think he may have actually believed what he was saying, whereas you know better.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 15, 2017 18:02:17 GMT
Have you paid attention to any polls? What do the polls have to do with it? Okay, I'll play along. If sixty percent polled support socialized healthcare, and forty percent are against it, why should the forty percent have to be signed up for something they don't want? Even if it's only one percent, why should the one percent have to take something they don't want? You know how democracies work, right?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2017 18:03:01 GMT
Unsurprising. It was apparent form the moment you couldn't actually offer any statement from Kimmel that you're not really sure what a socialized medicine program would look like. In any case, Kimmel's comment were regarding the Graham-Casey bill - the ACA is the one you're thinking of that "people don't want". (A little inaccurate in itself...I didn't either but many did.) Your confusion on this topic is pretty "CO2 is low" level. I never said I was "not really sure," laughing boy. I wanted to hear your own personal definition. Now I know you define socialized as government-funded. On another website some years ago there was a guy who argued with me at length that Obamacare wasn't socialized healthcare, and people only thought it was socialized healthcare. I think he may have actually believed what he was saying, whereas you know better. So how do YOU define socialised healthcare?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 18:09:21 GMT
What do the polls have to do with it? Okay, I'll play along. If sixty percent polled support socialized healthcare, and forty percent are against it, why should the forty percent have to be signed up for something they don't want? Even if it's only one percent, why should the one percent have to take something they don't want? You know how democracies work, right? Right. Will you support people who do not want to be shoehorned into something they don't want, like socialized healthcare?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 18:11:58 GMT
I never said I was "not really sure," laughing boy. I wanted to hear your own personal definition. Now I know you define socialized as government-funded. On another website some years ago there was a guy who argued with me at length that Obamacare wasn't socialized healthcare, and people only thought it was socialized healthcare. I think he may have actually believed what he was saying, whereas you know better. So how do YOU define socialised healthcare? I define it as a system whereby people's healthcare choices are restricted by the government. How it is funded is something of a nuance as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2017 18:15:40 GMT
So how do YOU define socialised healthcare? I define it as a system whereby people's healthcare choices are restricted by the government. How it is funded is something of a nuance as far as I'm concerned. Who would you consider being restricted if there was forced health insurance, because on the face of it it would be the person being required to buy insurance, but if there was no requirement then those that did not have insurance would ultimately be being paid for by the taxpayer (or I suppose they might not be given healthcare but you would have to be a pretty shitty society to do that) , which would therefore be a restriction on the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 18:20:33 GMT
I define it as a system whereby people's healthcare choices are restricted by the government. How it is funded is something of a nuance as far as I'm concerned. Who would you consider being restricted if there was forced health insurance, because on the face of it it would be the person being required to buy insurance, but if there was no requirement then those that did not have insurance would ultimately be being paid for by the taxpayer (or I suppose they might not be given healthcare but you would have to be a pretty shitty society to do that) , which would therefore be a restriction on the taxpayer. That's the only time you and your kind will bitch about the poor, poor, poor taxpayer. Otherwise you don't care. And we already have a shitty society here in the US. Millions of able-bodied people are collecting a government check every month for doing nothing. They declare themselves indigent and they get a free ride. How about that burden to the taxpayer? Does that bother you in principle?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2017 18:28:47 GMT
Who would you consider being restricted if there was forced health insurance, because on the face of it it would be the person being required to buy insurance, but if there was no requirement then those that did not have insurance would ultimately be being paid for by the taxpayer (or I suppose they might not be given healthcare but you would have to be a pretty shitty society to do that) , which would therefore be a restriction on the taxpayer. That's the only time you and your kind will bitch about the poor, poor, poor taxpayer. Otherwise you don't care. And we already have a shitty society here in the US. Millions of able-bodied people are collecting a government check every month for doing nothing. They declare themselves indigent and they get a free ride. How about that burden to the taxpayer? Does that bother you in principle? wow, you are so committed to your 'act' of idiocy you can't even answer a simple question.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Nov 15, 2017 18:29:57 GMT
It's not a quote. Your inability to cite any instances within Kimmel's spiel as well as your making up your own personal definition of "socialized medicine" are what gives the game away. "CO2 is low", bro.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 18:32:12 GMT
That's the only time you and your kind will bitch about the poor, poor, poor taxpayer. Otherwise you don't care. And we already have a shitty society here in the US. Millions of able-bodied people are collecting a government check every month for doing nothing. They declare themselves indigent and they get a free ride. How about that burden to the taxpayer? Does that bother you in principle? wow, you are so committed to your 'act' of idiocy you can't even answer a simple question. You didn't like the answer you got, so you resort to more insults. Whenever have you or any one of your fellows been concerned with the burden of the taxpayer......except when it comes to forcing socialized healthcare on the populace?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Nov 15, 2017 18:33:21 GMT
Who would you consider being restricted if there was forced health insurance, because on the face of it it would be the person being required to buy insurance, but if there was no requirement then those that did not have insurance would ultimately be being paid for by the taxpayer (or I suppose they might not be given healthcare but you would have to be a pretty shitty society to do that) , which would therefore be a restriction on the taxpayer. That's the only time you and your kind will bitch about the poor, poor, poor taxpayer. The entire conversation on tax in the liberal arena is about the disappearance of the middle class tax payer and how current tax models feed the rich and reduce dollar velocity at cost to the lower classes. It's literally a keystone in the platform. You live in a bubble. That's the trouble with your sole avenue to new info being the "suggested videos" sidebar; things modeled off of what you already want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2017 18:33:58 GMT
wow, you are so committed to your 'act' of idiocy you can't even answer a simple question. You didn't like the answer you got, so you resort to more insults. Whenever have you or any one of your fellows been concerned with the burden of the taxpayer......except when it comes to forcing socialized healthcare on the populace? You did not answer the question, you resorted to attacks, like you are here. perhaps you are capable of answering the question?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Nov 15, 2017 18:39:48 GMT
You didn't like the answer you got, so you resort to more insults. Whenever have you or any one of your fellows been concerned with the burden of the taxpayer......except when it comes to forcing socialized healthcare on the populace? You did not answer the question, you resorted to attacks, like you are here. perhaps you are capable of answering the question? I answered it by making the point that the only time you and your kind feign concern for taxpayers is when it comes to forcing socialized healthcare on the populace. All you have to do is scroll up and read it again in case you forgot.
|
|