All statistics are lies!

Apart from that, a better reason to doubt the results are that the provider of the poll, "Rasmussen Reports", is an organization with known links to conservatives.

I think we can all agree though that the nation is split on the issue pretty evenly. The only thing that irks me in this thread is those who support nationalized healthcare think it will suddenly solve the nation's problems with no associated cost or other negative effects. Any time anyone presents a viewpoint as all lolipops and sunshine, the only thing I smell is manure. Personally I'm just daunted by the thought of the infrastructure needed to implement such a system here.

Wookie's immediate justification for any position is "well, most people think x therefore it must be true!". That approach to thought was prevalent in the 1000 or so years after the invasion of Christianity into Europe, plunging us into the dark ages when we were far behind China and the Middle East in science and culture. It was only during the Enlightenment in the 18th century that the legitimacy of accepted truths began to be questioned and challenged by rational inquiry, and was the cause of great social, scientific and philosophical development in Europe - and the rebellion of the American colonists.

The reason Wookie never answers questions is simply because he cannot. Rational inquiry and discussion has no legitimacy for him, so he is forced to resort to vague deflections and (attempts at) humour.

Lies. Read older posts of mine. They're not as hard to find as the one of yours where you stated that the only reason you didn't support the 9/11 attacks was that you knew the US would retaliate.

Wookie, you have to understand they are having a giant circle jerk at your expense. They like to attack you because it makes them feel better about themselves/their opinions, and they can pat eachother on the back and give solemn nods of approval when one of them, in turn, makes some sort of quip.

There is no reason for multiple users to attack one poster this relentlessly, it just detracts from the subject at hand. However, like SF_Gold, people like to do this to give them a sense of superiority. It's sorta pathetic.

I'm not attacking wookie at all. What irks me, is that for several pages I'm trying to find out why he thinks what he thinks, and he just doesn't give a straight answer.

I'm honestly trying to understand, but apparently he thinks it's no use to explain himself to some foreign dude who can never understand (what he calls) his values.



This is what I mean. You just go 'it sucks!' and you don't explain why. No arguments whatsoever. Do you think you don't need to explain yourself because your reasons are obvious? I just don't get it.

This way, you're coming off as someone who just likes to throw around some crap, see what reactions it provokes, and then just laugh about it.

gah this x10

...which is pretty much the definition of a troll.

I'm also pretty tired of his outright dismissals of anyone who's not born in the same country as him. Unless something's stated by an all-American corn-fed good ol' boy it must be from a dirty commie foreigner who's not even worthy of being treated with decent manners.

It should be obvious to you all by now what his responses will be.

If you are truly seeking understanding, and think that through this method something will be uncovered, then I have a bridge to sell you. I'm calling bull****, because I know you guys are smarter than to think that eventually you'll "break him down" and he will divulge some secret. Wookie is a republican, with the values that his party has. What's not to get?

As someone stated, he's a real life example of Stephen Colbert's character. I dare say he is a well understood archetype, as much as an individual can be.

The best reason to doubt it is that healthcare is one of the most difficult issues to poll on, for reasons the ones detailed here.

IIRC, the healthcare bill in its various embodiments has ranged from marginally popular to fairly unpopular, so there's probably not anything wrong with this particular poll. But it would be quite a leap to claim based on polls like this one that a majority of Americans are opposed on a "values" level to any sort of public option or universal health care, especially since so much of the opposition to this bill has come from people who don't think the bill does enough.

Considering the kinds of outrageous claims you make, there are only two legitimate explanations for having no reason to explain yourself:

1.) You are an important person and people choose to listen to your untested rhetoric for its philosophical or spiritual value.
2.) You are a recognized authority on the subject and most people voluntarily defer to your greater understanding.

The nature of your person precludes either of these possibilities: in fact, it is equivalent to say that you have no justification to not explain yourself. We are therefore led to the following corollaries:

1.) You are profoundly narcissistic.
2.) You are so incompetent you are even incapable of understanding your own incompetence.

As with most things, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sad fact is, Wookie06, nobody wants to listen to what you have to say: it's not profound, it's not original. You are not synthesizing knowledge. You don't know **** about ****. If we want the opinion of a Republican soldier, we'll at least ask one who has the balls to open his opinion to public discourse.

You assume too much. As an ignorant foreigner, I'm not aware of these archetypes you're referring to. I have no idea who Stephen Colbert is. I'm serious. I want to hear some arguments for his statements. I have no idea why Republicans would find the idea of making health insurance affordable for everyone an atrocity.

I've made an *** out of you and me. Mostly me. At least for the Colbert bit.

I still think you have the mental capacity to see a useless effort when you see one. Consider this a compliment.

My opinion is that this is wrong, if we start defining what the hell American values are. This is something I have only a personal, uneducated opinion on, because I'm an atheist and I fundamentally can't understand the values of people who believe in magic (which is still the majority of the country).

The reason my ancestors came to this place was freedom. Freedom defined from both sides as a release of oppression from the state. A public option forces people to pay for others. It's oppression, in the loosest definition that it makes people do what they don't want to do for no personal gain. If I have a reasonable job, I can afford to buy healthcare. Why should I pay for the health of some other sap who failed to plan ahead or provide for themselves? Why make the ant pay for the grasshopper? This is as opposed to forcing people to not steal, which is universally beneficial because no one wants their crap stolen. Hell, this is a basic human value: we're selfish.

I think the majority of people that are for a public option are fairly selfish, because they know that their bill will be paid for by others. What gall for you to determine what I do with my money, and then have the audacity to call me selfish for not wanting to put forth money that you don't even have to give!

Answer me this: what set of American values does universal healthcare fall under? The value that "let that guy pay for me, because he has more money?" Before anyone makes a post bemoaning how horrible this viewpoint is, ask yourself how much you are going to lose financially from this deal. If you only can gain from this, your opinion is null and void.

Edit: I'm going off of the proposed taxes for the public option.

I think many think it falls under "charity" except that it doesn't, because charity is individually voluntary.

A common misconception indeed, well put. Thank you for helping stem some possible frivolous replies.

Even if it is charity, I'm reminded of the dressing down Quagmire gives to Brian in family guy. When is the last time people actually back up their feelings with actions?

All I know is that I work in a free clinic, and I'm the selfish one. I can only imagine what the paragons of virtue do around here, the champions of the common man who take time off their busy schedule of sacrifice to cast down those who dare oppose their Utopian schemes, if a lowlife such as I engages in 12 hours a week of unpaid work.

I don't expect any replies today, as most of them are probably in soup kitchens, feeding the homeless.

I already said I didn't expect him to elaborate. He's a troll. Still, it frustrates me when people refuse to come up with solid arguments.



General welfare? A Higher standard of living?

For some reason, you seem to think that if people are in a financially bad situation, they are to blame for it themselves. It goes without saying that there are countless reasons why people are poor without it being their fault.



Universal healthcare isn't oppression if it's what a majority of people want, if it's what they vote for.

And saying that universal healthcare isn't universally beneficial is the same thing as saying that people shouldn't be taxed for building roads when they don't even own a car. It's oppression zomg!

Edit: There are many exceptions to this. I'm going to raise a white flag here because this tangent can go on forever. Needless to say bad things happen to good people. But there should be a way for it to be taken care of on a person-by person basis, or at least not some open pot that everyone can stick their hand in. I know many personal tragedies, and would willingly chip in for their health coverage. But this is all on a personal basis. There are *******s I know that it burns me that they are giving government handouts. Like anything else, there is the good and the bad. I don't think that everyone is poor because they deserve it, but I don't think every poor man is a victim.

Individuals who need finances in an *emergency* should have a safety net. However, having the government cover everything is not the only answer. Also, seeing a doc and the expenses for outpatient stuff is not bank breaking. It's expensive, but not unreasonably so. While many bankruptcies are due to healthcare, the majority of people are not bankrupt.



I'm so tempted to Godwin this stupid statement. I'll just imply it.



I hate when people use post/roads as an example. Everyone needs transit for at least goods to travel, unless you happen to be living like Walden. For commerce to work and most people to have jobs, you need to have roads. An idiotic comparison, just as blisteringly frothing at the mouth meatheaded view as comparing healthcare to law enforcement or fire coverage. The majority of people need very little (if any) healthcare during their productive years, and I'm going to say that I support free healthcare for children and mothers, so let's also not start that. Basically, healthcare isn't as universal of a need as roads. The majority of people here would still be alive, healthcare or not, if they never saw an MD from 15 to 50. But I assure you we've all needed roads.

Edit: We are now talking about universal healthcare in general, not the bill proposed.

ok some of the main problems i have with this health care bill are as follows:

1. there are multiple crippling provisions that seem like they will destroy private insurance companies;
they cannot refuse to cover someone with a previously existing condition, this in and of itself makes no sense. it changes the role of an insurance company from providing insurance AGAINST something happening, to simply an entity that pays your medical bill for you. combining this with limiting what insurance companies are able to charge for premiums and co-pays is just idiotic from a business sense.

it reeks of blatantly setting the stage for a single payer system.

2. we are going to be forced to purchase a service from a private company or face penalty from the federal government.... personally i don't think i need to say more. i could be wrong but i don't think this precedent has ever been set in our countries history. and this is not like car insurance. i can choose to drive or not drive. this is basically being forced to buy insurance on being alive. sure i suppose i could choose to off myself. that'd learn them real good!

3. last but not least i am a little unsure of why the price tag on this leviathan is still hovering around a TRILLION dollars...??? from what i understand there is no longer a public option in the bill. what the hell is all this money going to?!?!?!?

I just thought I'd toss in a comment on this. That is the OPPOSITE of what we should do. Not that we should stop waging costly war around the world, I have no comment on that, but that we should stop doing it in order to fund social programs. One of the federal government's PRIMARY jobs is to protect the nation militarily. If we had to cut funding, the military should be the LAST thing to suffer, not the first. Especially with the country we have today which is built almost entirely on trust in our military power.

Anyway, that's not to say that we shouldn't stop running around the world fighting wars, just that we shouldn't stop for the wrong reasons.

Trust me. I've been around here long enough to understand these people.



I have given a straight answer. I rarely care to debate on this site. I offer an opinion and sometimes I expound upon it. I learned a long time ago not to get personally wrapped into debates. The end result is the same, though. I'm really treated no differently now than I was in the '03-'07 timeframe.



Don't confuse my dismissal of Jon'C because he is not American with a general attitude of dismissing foreigners. Your posts have been thoughtful and unimposing. Other foreigners here routinely offer their "profound" insight into many American things as fact. The fact is the ones on this site that do so are far left wingers in comparison to most Americans and their views are so condescending that most Americans would probably take great insult.

I appreciate your frustration and apologize. Feel free to PM me any serious questions you have and I may deal with them there.

Two way street.

Show respect to get respect.

Act like an adult to be treated like one.

etc etc

Reading this again, I see what you mean, and I have to admit I didn't give that statement much thought. Please disregard.

Um. We really shouldn't need to do that, since I'm only talking about whether the individual values of a majority of Americans prevent them from supporting universal health care. We could argue about what are basic American values until we're both :nonono:, but what I'm concerned with at the moment are the aggregated preferences of actual individual Americans.

More lies. I was not treated with respect by people like you even though I generally posted in a thoughtful and courteous manner. Posting conservative thought or being open minded enough to not outright dismiss people's opinions because it might be founded based on their religious beliefs is enough to be labeled a retard here. As I said, there is no reason to posting the way I used to because I was treated the same then as I am now. Liberals just tend to be so intolerant of conservative argument that they end up resorting to name calling and personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue.

Wow, I missed something. The majority of Americans believe in magic?

Actually, Obama's approval rating has been going down, not up.

I assume you've got a conclusion to go with this premise. Next time, could you try putting those in the same post?

Real life too.

Religion in the United States

According to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:

Christianity: (78.5%)
Protestantism (51.3%)
Roman Catholicism (23.9%)
Mormonism (1.7%)
Jehovah's Witnesses (0.7%)
Orthodox Church (0.6%)
other Christian (0.3%)
Unaffiliated, including atheist or agnostic (16.1%)
Judaism (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Islam (0.6%)
Hinduism (0.4%)
other (1.2%)


The implication being that believing in a religion is comparable to believing in magic. I can't disagree, except with the somewhat pejorative tone.

[quote=Darth Alran]1. there are multiple crippling provisions that seem like they will destroy private insurance companies;
they cannot refuse to cover someone with a previously existing condition, this in and of itself makes no sense.[/quote]

Whut.

Don't be polite, you make me feel like a jerk



Fine, but I am personally going to declare complete ignorance about the real preferences of the majority of anyone. I don't know it for my mother and father half the time. I'm going to take a guess and go the pessimist route and say the majority of people are interested in their own well being (as that's what helped their ancestors survive to breed), and base their decision on how much the stand to benefit or lose from a universal plan, with poorer segments being for and richer segments being against, in a sort of gradient, averaging to about a 50/50 split. But there are other factors to consider like those who fear anything remotely communist, and celebrities who tend to be democrats (among many examples of how the gradient has exceptions).



If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and asks to be called Anas platyrhynchos, I'm still calling it a duck. Also, if I believed there were some sort of supernatural force at play, especially a personal one that many monotheists believe in, it would shift my values so hard I wouldn't be the same person, so I thought it was relevant to frame my assumptions.

I was under the impression that the purpose of insurance was to get a multiple-contributor system, thus providing a large pool of money, from which to draw during times of need when I, myself, do not have the money to completely cover treatment.

Why should someone with a pre-existing condition be denied coverage? While it doesn't appear to be the most un-biased of sources, stories like this make this seem like a worthwhile provision.

this >>>





you know... the part DIRECTLY after the part you quoted.

if you are going to ban "discrimination" based on preexisting conditions (if i am going to be honest), it only makes sense to have a single payer system. forcing a system that for all intents and purposes gambles that you will NOT need to get medical help to cover someone who is ALL READY sick makes absolutely no business sense. yes, yes... i know... "what about the children!!! bleeding heart blip blip..."

Not to mention insurance companies find all kinds of unfair reasons to exclude people. Babies that are slightly overweight, woman who have been beaten by the husbands before, all sorts of silly things.

Money over people.
That in and itself is what is really going on here as far as I can see.

That's what I see as the problem with the current system - insurance companies do not care at all about the health of their customers. Their only concern is making money (and they get even more money by screwing people over!)

look, i am not saying i dont think people with preexisting conditions should not receive help paying for medical bills. yes, from a customer point of view the purpose of health insurance is
however from the vantage point of the insurance company the idea is to gamble on who is at the lowest risk of needing to use the coverage in the first place. that is how they make a profit. covering an already sick person would be the equivalent of investing in a stock that is steadily loosing value.

Are people still complaining that america's health care will no longer be comparable to that of third world countries?

Because we've given up. Every single time someone seriously asks you to back up your opinions, LIKE IN THIS THREAD, you ignore it!! You post this crap instead! How can you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously? You have NEVER once in the history of posted here explained your beliefs!

Uh.... you realize it's the even worse the other way round, right?

More lies.