Fox News Shows Their Idiocy Again
- Thread starter X
- Start date
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
The rates are so high because doctors have to run ten redundant tests on people because they're so scared of getting sued. Doctor's are on TV all the time saying that they practice defensive medicine.
We need tort reform so that people can pay for their own insurance policies instead of having the government pay for it for them.
We need tort reform so that people can pay for their own insurance policies instead of having the government pay for it for them.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Then the rates are way too high because if my memory is right the head of one of the major companies made $24 million last year. Also, while there certainly are corrupted doctors out there, I have a big issue believing that the majority of them are corrupt. It also strikes me as odd that we're the only industrialized or modern nation in the world that doesn't have a competent healthcare system and we're the only one that has a profit based insurance business. One way or another, something needs to change, period. If nothing else giving everyone insurance like in England or Canada would work. It's not saying that your insurance would be taken away. It would mean spending more money, but it's more than worth it. We're spending all kinds of money on absurd and pointless stuff already,, but we can't on something like our health and keeping people from having to be afraid of getting sick?
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
People need to keep pharmaceutical companies out of this. People who talk about the frivolousness of regulated psychotropic medication have absolutely no clue what the fuck they're talking about. Although, I will agree that maybe insurance companies shouldn't cover ED medications.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
That's mostly what I'm getting at TDigs, there are so many stupid things that people claim on insurance like ED pills that it's flat out ridiculous. But of course if they dont' have ED pills then they'll be on pills for depression and so on and so forth.
It's the whole small govt vs. big govt argument. Do you want your money all kept for yourself, but you're responsible for what you do for it, or do you want most of it given to the government and want them to take care of everythign for you. I personally feel that I can take care of myself better then the government can. I'm disciplined enough to have a certain amount of my pay taken out each week and put into a separate HSA then my checking and savings account. However, I know there are tons of people that have zero discipline.
It's all up the person. I think I can take care of myself, and like the current system.
It's the whole small govt vs. big govt argument. Do you want your money all kept for yourself, but you're responsible for what you do for it, or do you want most of it given to the government and want them to take care of everythign for you. I personally feel that I can take care of myself better then the government can. I'm disciplined enough to have a certain amount of my pay taken out each week and put into a separate HSA then my checking and savings account. However, I know there are tons of people that have zero discipline.
It's all up the person. I think I can take care of myself, and like the current system.
Wait, you don't think anti-depressants should be covered by insurance?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Shocky, again I think it's a far different thing than being able to take care of yourself. Like I've said before, buddy of mine worked, made 14 dollars an hour, her mother and father both had good jobs, but because she was born with a genetic defect and raped, her insurance went so high that they couldn't pay their mortgage and insurance at the same time. They did nothing wrong and the system completely didn't work. That's the kind of thing I have a big problem with. She got treatment, but after that it was never going to happen again. Because she was born with something wrong and someone forced themselves on her, a company should be allowed to charge her a lot more money?
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Yeah...I still can't believe the public is still having conversations about the usefulness of antidepressants. It's pretty much all but scientific law that neurochemical imbalances play a huge role in psychological disorders.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
KB and I just took this thing way off course.
Decent argument over healthcare or Those trees aren't green!
You're a former admin. Which is better?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
τδιγλε;1503127 said:
Anti-depresseants are great, when they're used properly. If someone legitimately needs them, by all means they should be allowed to get them. However, if someone is given them because some quack doctor or whoever doesn't have the time to properly look into what the person needs and just says they're depressed to shut them up, that doesn't work and it makes everyone have to pay for it.
If you're born with something is a sketchy area that I don't like. People can't help the way they are born, so they should be covered, I have no problem with that. Not to be cruel, but I don't have sympathy for the 40 year cigarette smoker that develops Lung Cancer and gets dropped.
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I do hear you, though, man. I already hate the fact that the government already takes away a 1/3 of my paycheck, and that, if I wanted any of it back, I'd have to get "creative" with my tax filings. If there's one thing that's holding me back from being for socialized healthcare, it's more taxes.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Agreed. That's where a lot of this comes from. People that eat their way out of being able to move so they insist that they need a 15 thousand dollar surgery to fix it, because obesity is a disease. No, no it isn't. Now there are cases where people do have issues and conditions where they can't tell they're full, and they should indeed be treated differently. But if you just can't put down the Doritos, no, I'm not paying for you not being willing to stop eating and go for a walk.
Nope, quite awake.
Why respond in a broad sense when you and I both know what he meant? I mean, I could have said "It cost peanuts to attend the rally", and you reply with "Peanuts are delicious", and it would have the exact same implication.
Just because he didn't specify which trees he was referring to didn't mean you didn't know which ones.
Like I said...Red Herring argument.
But, DIAR, you're not ******ed, you have the ability to infer. You just chose to not use it. And why? I'm guessing you're just bored and want to needle someone.
Well, that's great logic.
And if he were to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you do it to?
Sure you did. In order to divert from the initial topic discussion of Fox using Beck's footage to promote their agenda, you deliberately took a comment out of context, and tried to use it to start another debate on a different topic.
Almost a classic case of a Red Herring fallacy.
I know you never said that, but given the discussion at hand, it's clear you were doing 1 of 2 things...trying to make people THINK you were saying they were evergreen trees (without actually committing to saying they were), or trying to start a red herring argument about the existence of evergreen trees.
Either way, my posting of the pictures forced you to commit to one of those two options, which I could then attack you on.
Like I am now...quite successfully, I might add.
X doesn't need outing, he's done that himself.
But on a serious note, how can you out me when I never took a position on the initial stance at all? I mean, using your logic, did I ever say you said the trees in question were evergreens? Nope. I just simply said they weren't. Then, you admitted to your red herring argument, and I outed you for it.
The awesome part is how I'm playing your little game and absolutely destroying you in it.
I fail to see the things Xfear said has anything to do with our conversation. But, hey, you're on a roll trying to switch topics, so why stop now, right?
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
τδιγλε;1503141 said:
That's the big argument against it: taxes. However, what if your insurance dropped enough to cancel the tax increase out? In other words, you pay the same amount but because you fill out a tax return, you have healthcare if you need it. How does that sound?
I'm doing my part to bring it back.
KB and I just took this thing way off course.
For fuck's sake, there is the semantics of tree colors to be discussed here!
Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
If it was a flat-tax, then maybe. But, if it's going to be a percentage tax (like all of our other federal taxes are), then I'm not so sure about that.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
And to top it off, South Park is parodying Glenn Beck.
Cue: Family Guy vs. South Park
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
τδιγλε;1503150 said:
I've wanted a flat tax for years now. Also I want the Bush tax cuts repealed and the troops brought home, which hopefully happens soon. We can't spend money on healthcare but we can pour money into things that aren't getting any better or are just costing the country money so rich people can save money?
