Tea Party Questions

Hmmm.If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?

You may note that the very next sentence detailed that I do have a problem with business models that equate profit with denying coverage.The companies that supply the police and fire departments and the publishers that fill our libraries with books do work for-profit, and things seem to work perfectly well.The problem is when the service provider itself is providing coverage as insurance - premiums are paid whether services are rendered or not, and so inevitably it is more profitable to deny services while continuing to accept premium payments. This is true of healthcare, and has historically been true when services like fire protection have been privatized.Please try to read full paragraphs rather than attempting to quote-mine. I'm an absolute supporter of a single-payer, 100% tax-funded healthcare system like in Canada. Representing me as pro-private-healthcare would be factually incorrect.

No Rhavin, there was no attempt to quote-mine, my question was simply a question. You might want to ask YOURSELF what's with the paranoia. Thanks for the false accusation though, it's such a delight communicating with you. Oh brother. Yes Rhavin, asking ONE question "If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?" is the same as representing you as a pro-private healthcare advocate. Furthermore, I didn't ask you if you do have a problem with business models that equate profit with denying coverage. Err, thanks anyways, but here is my ACTUAL question, again:"If the police department, fire department, and libraries strove to make profits, would you be Ok with that too?"Your answer "I'm an absolute supporter of a single-payer, 100% tax-funded healthcare system like in Canada", seems to contrast your previous post "I don't have a problem with people making a profit." Thanks for the clarification.[We already have death panels, they're called insurance companies]

Hi Rahvin, Yeah, and if I go back and work 2 more years I can qualify for full social benefits, retirement etc. ... so I may have a back door to get away from the disfunctional nut fraction.The Tea Party makes the neo-cons look good by comparison, just as Scrubbia made Nixon look good ... (though his face still looks like a foot⁽¹⁾).Enjoy

---

Notes:⁽¹⁾ - George Carlin comment

It was either a quote-mine, or an example of incapacity for reading comprehension. I've seen your ability to comprehend what you read, ergo I can only conclude the remaining option.The logical conclusion of:

quote:

---

I do have a problem with a business model that directly correlates greater profit to refusing treatment.

---

is that I would similarly have a problem with any other business model in which denying services, particularly socially necessary services like healthcare, police, and fire protection, would be directly correlated to profit.Since you apparently need it spelled out directly: YES, I would have a problem with for-profit fire, police, education, and other socially necessary services in which a for-profit business model would result in denial of insured services carrying larger profits. It is, because it's blatantly obvious as a question one would only ask to a person who expressed support for a for-profit healthcare model. It's a question I've asked others many times for exactly the same reason. The logical conclusion of for-profit fire, police, and education, dronester, is (get this):A business model in which denial of socially necessary services directly correlates to higher profit. Denying coverage for cancer treatment while soaking up premiums = higher profit. Denying police protection while soaking up tax/private payment/whatever = higher profit. Denying a fire truck for an emergency fire call while taking revenue from "fire insurance" = higher profit. Fewer books at a library while accepting payment = higher profit.Are you following me here, dronester?This means that, again, we have two choices:1) you read one sentence of my post and reacted without reading the rest, in effect quote-mining, or
2) you read the entire post, but didn't actually think for even a fraction of a second about what you were reading, because a grade-school child could easily establish that the very next sentence after your quote was an indictment against any for-profit social service, like fire, police, healthcare, or education. No, it doesn't, not if you actually read my words. I was specifically pointing out the fact that mysteriously Big Pharma still seems to find selling medication to Canada and other single-payer nations to be a profitable exercise (else they simply wouldn't do it) while still guaranteeing no-cost-at-point-of-service medical coverage for all citizens based on need rather than income; and that therefore it's curious that we see so much vehement resistance to such programs here in the States. Agreed completely.

It's a very interesting phenomenon that normal individuals so easily buy in to voting expressly against their own interests.I pay something like $700/month for just my share of my "employer-provided" healthcare for myself and my fiance (covered as a "domestic partner" until we get married), plus roughly an additional $150 in prescription medications, plus copays for doctor visits.I would be more than happy to pay the exact same amount to the federal government instead of insurance companies so that a nation-wide public healthcare provider could then better negotiate prices on medication and services at a group rate 300+ million subscribers strong, and guarantee coverage to everyone on the basis of need alone. I'm rather tired of the percentage of my insurance premium that goes to administrative overhead, deciding whether to approve or deny claims, rather than giving coverage to the people who are sick.

Amen brotha Rahvin amenbut you preachin to the choir, man. I pay $1,250.00 a month and cannot afford to NOT have health insurance because of my incurable cancer with annual cat-scans that run over $5,000.00 at shot if you don't have coverage ... if I banked my premium and went "self-pay" for a year I would break even -- as long as the cancer did not come back. So why not we organize all like minded people to form a non-profit organization\club\association that provides health care for all members (similar to AARP?). Get registered democrats, like minded libertarians and fiscal conservatives, small businesses etc to join ... maybe 100+ million strong and growing ...Joining is voluntary, there is a monthly fee, but membership has privileges.We don't need no steenken approval from TeaPee'ers and Evangelical GOPs, we meet the requirements of the Obama Care Plan for coverages.Change by evolution not revolution! (waves red banner with a footed fetish⁽¹⁾ ... ) Enjoy

---

Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - as opposed to a foot food fetid dish Edited by Zen Deist, : ..

@Zen Deist, I like your banner.

Best evidence, Nuggin. Where is the attribution on this statement?

I agree that people like Palin are often over demonized.
But that statement by Nuggin seems correct.Here she descibes it as "shout-out, gotcha":
Fox News

quote:

---

He did warn the British and in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly - and I know my American history.

---

...and that is in a positive article supporting Palin (as you would expect from Fox).Edited by Panda, : better word

Let me categorically state that Palin says any question asked of her is a "gotcha" question.Still, here's the article where she is claiming she was right about Paul Reverse including her "gotcha" complaint.http://articles.nydailynews.com/...warning-shots-paul-revereHere's a video of it:http://www.gotchamediablog.com/...rah-palin-defends-her.htmlCheck out minute - 1:20In fact, googling "palin" "revere" "gotcha" brings up literally dozens of reports.Seems like before you demand this sort of evidence from me, you might want to use the same internet and type in less words to see if you can find it for yourself.Unless of course you honestly don't think Palin bitches about "gotcha" media.

Could you identify the contradiction you apparently see here?

I did. Which is why I asked you if the story I found was the one you referred to, and asked for your source on her further statement.But here is the main point of this exercise:You relayed the story. It is up to you to provide the citations.Just because this thread deals in politics and not science or religion does not mean the rules of evidence are suspended. As we are so fond of telling the creationists here, it is not up to me to go looking for your missing citations. It is incumbent upon you to provide them up front. Worse than that.Except for the fact that Palin turned out to be substantially correct in her Revere story, she did later, after the blow-up with an apparently equally clueless media, refer to the "Boston" question as a "gotcha." Which is surprising since it was not a "gotcha" question and she answered it well enough. I think she got confused after the inane media blow-up about her answer.Frankly, if she can become that confused over something this plain then this is another indicator that she is well outside her league.But, in the end, you have made your point, finally, with evidence, and I accept that.I hope I have made mine.Now to continue: I think you are going to have a hard time showing this one.Any question? As each and every question anyone would ask of her? Really?Prove it. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I wanted to respond to Nuggin first. Hope you don't mind. Indeed it does. And with someone like Sarah it fits. But that wasn't the point. Was it, in fact, correct?Like religion and evolution, politics is fraught with emotion to the point where people will take anything that fits their negative view of an opponent as fact whether it is or not.After some nugging ... eh ... nudging, Nuggin provided the required evidence. Good for him.

Do you have citations to show that we are "fond of telling creationists"? Or am I supposed to take your word for it simply because it's common knowledge.It seems to me that you could just as easily ask "prove to me that it was Sarah Palin who was in Boston" or "provide citations explaining who Sarah Palin is"We're talking about an event that was national news for weeks.At some point it falls on the reader to be at least up enough on the topic to participate. I don't think she "got" confused. She's in a perpetual state of confusion.Her complaint about the Katie Couric interview was also "gotcha journalism".The questions in particular:
- Do you support the Bush Doctrine?
- What newspapers do you read?Here's a link to a wiki page explaining who "Katie Couric" is
Katie Couric - WikipediaHere's a link a page explaining what a "wiki page" is
Wikipedia - WikipediaHere's a link explaining what a link is
HTML Links HyperlinksPalin was running for VICE PRESIDENT behind a man who has had all three kinds of skin cancer and is considerably older than most people who get elected to the position.It is not unreasonable to expect the VP nom to be able to name what newspapers she reads, nor for her to know the name of the foreign policy which had guided the country into two ongoing wars.These are _soft ball_ questions. Nah. I've provided you with more than enough links for today.Maybe if you demonstrate sufficient understanding of the links provided we can move on.