RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Using H1N1 to sway the health care debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Using H1N1 to sway the health care debate. It's all tactics to play on people's emotions, just the same as the other side, when they talk about personal sympathetic stories about how families are getting crushed with health insurance premiums and then point to the health insurance companies and demonize them as being "greedy", suggesting that they are pocketing the increased premiums. Where in reality, that is a blatant lie, and is one of the least profitable industries, measured by Profit Margins in the U.S What I find to be funny about that point is that none of the Bills that they have produced bring down premiums. They actually make them higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 It's all tactics to play on people's emotions, just the same as the other side, when they talk about personal sympathetic stories about how families are getting crushed with health insurance premiums and then point to the health insurance companies and demonize them as being "greedy", suggesting that they are pocketing the increased premiums. Where in reality, that is a blatant lie, and is one of the least profitable industries, measured by Profit Margins in the U.S What I find to be funny about that point is that none of the Bills that they have produced bring down premiums. They actually make them higher But "care" will be cheaper. Because adding another layer of bureaucracy always does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But "care" will be cheaper. Because adding another layer of bureaucracy always does that. Another layer of anything will increase costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 But "care" will be cheaper. Because adding another layer of bureaucracy always does that. Really Tom? Are you talking about this layer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But that’s misleading. A Guantanamo spokesperson said Who is the spokesperson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But a Pentagon spokesman has since clarified to CNN .... Oh, the official Pentagon spokesman Czar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Really Tom? Are you talking about this layer? No, he's just living in reality. There isn't a person out there with a decent education who needs to be told that adding layers of management adds expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 just the same as the other side I love how morons like you always say stuff like this, "both sides are the same" yet you would never in a million years vote for a dem. Somehow they are the same, but one side is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I love how morons like you always say stuff like this, "both sides are the same" yet you would never in a million years vote for a dem. Somehow they are the same, but one side is better. And I love how morons like you think those are the only two options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Is it just me or does anyone come away with the impression that R.I's source of news and information comes from FACTCHECKS? Sort of reminds me of Delladork and his youtube's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Is it just me or does anyone come away with the impression that R.I's source of news and information comes from FACTCHECKS? Sort of reminds me of Delladork and his youtube's. Last week is was stumbeupon.com, this week it's factcheck.com, next week ineedalife.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Really Tom? Are you talking about this layer? You've got to be !@#$ing kidding me. You just linked yet another fact check, that doesn't even disprove what TOM was saying. CBO estimated that 6 million Americans total would join the so-called "public plan" by 2019 — and that premiums would be "somewhat higher" than the average private plan premiums offered through an insurance exchange. CBO said the plan would be most attractive to the less healthy members of the population, forcing premiums higher, despite the fact that the federal plan would save some money on administrative costs. CBO: [A] public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.) hmmm "somewhat higher". Does that mean higher or lower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Really Tom? Are you talking about this layer? No, I'm talking about the layer for the managed exchange, and the layer that provides oversite and enforcement of the different mandates in the bill, and the layer that's supposed to control the "point-of-care" costs... You can't just implement an eleven-hundred page bill outlining a new government set of government programs without adding bureaucracy, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Last week is was stumbeupon.com, this week it's factcheck.com, next week ineedalife.org. Oh ya, stumbleupon.com that was great. Let's see here, his topics of conversation last week from stumbleupon.com Birthers, Fox News, Ron Paul, Government takeovers and George Bush, man he hit the Trifecta on all the liberal mocking points. Bishop Hedd would be jealous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 No, he's just living in reality. There isn't a person out there with a decent education who needs to be told that adding layers of management adds expense. Of course, that's not the point he's making. The point he's making is that although I claim to be an independent, I'm actually a raving right-wing lunatic who thinks the government's taking over everything. Because when I said "additional bureaucracy", I obviously meant "public health care with no private option." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 Of course, that's not the point he's making. The point he's making is that although I claim to be an independent, I'm actually a raving right-wing lunatic who thinks the government's taking over everything. Because when I said "additional bureaucracy", I obviously meant "public health care with no private option." No, the point I'm making is simply that if the proposed health care legislation all the right wing loonies are so up in arms over is anywhere near as bad as what is being claimed on this board then why isn't the plain and simple truth about it good enough to debunk it with? Why does the opposition party feel the need to exagerate, falsify, distort, bend, fold, and mutilate the truth in their efforts to discredit the proposals in the court of public opinion? Most of you guys will jump thru hoops to prove that having an R, L, or I appended to your name makes you a better person than anyone with a D, so forget the "They do it too" arguments. And forget attacking me, your opinion of me has about the same relevance to the question as an apple does to the dark side of the moon. What in your eyes makes those tactics acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Why does the opposition party feel the need to exagerate, falsify, distort, bend, fold, and mutilate the truth in their efforts to discredit the proposals in the court of public opinion? Because it's a tried and true political tactic that works better than just about anything else. Your attempt to discount it is laughable. And I'm definitely better than anyone who has any letter after their name. ANYONE who chooses to follow either of the parties currently running this country is a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 Because it's a tried and true political tactic that works better than just about anything else. Your attempt to discount it is laughable. And I'm definitely better than anyone who has any letter after their name. ANYONE who chooses to follow either of the parties currently running this country is a buffoon. Bastard, you just took all the fun out of this... Friggin' Dependants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 What in your eyes makes those tactics acceptable? Now how did I know you were going to follow up your earlier tour de farce with an idiotic "Anyone who doesn't explicitly agree with me must explicitly disagree with me" argument? You're sadly predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts