UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-23-2012, 01:30 PM   #26
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
You have CLEARLY not read a single portion of the "Affordable Care Act" if you think Obama's "Cleared up the Healthcare Problem."
Or your a person who supports Government Monopolies and Infringement of Civil Liberties.

Which is it?
You know who else hasn't read it? Everyone.

It provides health care to something like 10% of our population that didn't previously have it. Sounds alright to me.

And just because I support government provided health care doesn't mean I support government monopolies in general. May I remind you that every other industrialized country has government provided health care?

Infringement of civil liberties, eh? That people are required to have health care? Because clearly more people would be willing to blow all of their savings to get their cheek swabbed rather than having insurance that covers it. The Patriot Act is a much worse infringement on civil liberties than PPACA is.

Taking a ton of money out of care providers was probably the wrong way to pay for it, though. Time will only tell what will happen.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 02:45 PM   #27
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
You know who else hasn't read it? Everyone.
Nanci Peloski: "We need to pass this bill to see what's in it" Seriously, that's gross negligence on the part of our Representatives for not reading it.

Not suprizingly, those who have read it, Oppose it.

Quote:
It provides health care to something like 10% of our population that didn't previously have it. Sounds alright to me.
Correction:

It Forces 10 percent of the population who don't have health insurance, many of which, don't want it, or can't afford to pay for it, to either, whether they can afford it or not, buy health insurance from a private company (or the government which deliberately sells for lower), OR, pay a Penalty (TAX!).

Furthermore, the penalty (TAX), required for refusing to buy health insurance, is Deliberately Lower than the Cost of a Health Insurance Plan, deliberately inducing Private Employers (Companies), in order to keep the cost of doing business low (and thereby keeping the price of their products low), to drop ALL Insurance Coverage plans for their employees which they had beforehand, and just pay the fee, causing far FAR more Americans to be without an Insurance Policy, and putting Insurance Companies out of business.

Additionally, the Penalty (TAX) is deliberately set to increase in cost Above the price of the Governmental Insurance Plan, several years down the road, deliberately to force those who have been "cutting costs" by paying the penalty (TAX), to sign onto the government's Plan, since the majority of the Health Insurance Companies have already bankrupted and gone out of business during the previous period of lower cost for not buying a plan.

Ultimately we end up with a single insurance policy provider, controlled entirely by the government, AKA a Government Monopoly, which requires higher and higher taxes to fund because it, like all other Governmental Programs, runs at a Net Monetary LOSS.

Sounds like an absolutely TERRIBLE system to me.

Quote:
And just because I support government provided health care doesn't mean I support government monopolies in general. May I remind you that every other industrialized country has government provided health care?
If you support 1, why wouldn't you support ALL of them?

And I was always taught to NOT to give in to peer pressure. Why should we let our American System cave into it? Just because everyone else is lining up to jump off the fiscal cliff, doesn't mean we should too.

Quote:
Infringement of civil liberties, eh? That people are required to have health care? Because clearly more people would be willing to blow all of their savings to get their cheek swabbed rather than having insurance that covers it. The Patriot Act is a much worse infringement on civil liberties than PPACA is.
The Power of Government to TAX a person's INACTION, means the government can control EVERY aspect of a person's Life. We've essentially given up EVERY Right and Freedom and Liberty we've ever had by allowing this to go though. Let's Tax a person's choice to NOT buy a Gun too then why don't we? And Tax their choice to NOT buy Green Socks. And their choice to NOT buy an iPad, and their choice to NOT buy a Rosary, or their choice to NOT regularly attend a Church. Do you see the problem now?


Quote:
Taking a ton of money out of care providers was probably the wrong way to pay for it, though. Time will only tell what will happen.
Time will tell? No, anyone who can read, and understands economics, can tell where America is going to go under this Policy.

Last edited by unownmew; 08-23-2012 at 02:48 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 03:39 PM   #28
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Nanci Peloski: "We need to pass this bill to see what's in it" Seriously, that's gross negligence on the part of our Representatives for not reading it.

Not suprizingly, those who have read it, Oppose it.
Have you read the law?

Quote:
Correction:

It Forces 10 percent of the population who don't have health insurance, many of which, don't want it, or can't afford to pay for it, to either, whether they can afford it or not, buy health insurance from a private company (or the government which deliberately sells for lower), OR, pay a Penalty (TAX!).
Yup.

Quote:
Furthermore, the penalty (TAX), required for refusing to buy health insurance, is Deliberately Lower than the Cost of a Health Insurance Plan, deliberately inducing Private Employers (Companies), in order to keep the cost of doing business low (and thereby keeping the price of their products low), to drop ALL Insurance Coverage plans for their employees which they had beforehand, and just pay the fee, causing far FAR more Americans to be without an Insurance Policy, and putting Insurance Companies out of business.
They wouldn't if they want to keep their workers.

Leaving health insurance to the free market is fundamentally flawed, as businesses tend to try to save money rather than provide a decent product, which is what we were seeing before Obamacare. I thought Republicans were all about the right to life, but I suppose I was mistaken.

Quote:
Additionally, the Penalty (TAX) is deliberately set to increase in cost Above the price of the Governmental Insurance Plan, several years down the road, deliberately to force those who have been "cutting costs" by paying the penalty (TAX), to sign onto the government's Plan, since the majority of the Health Insurance Companies have already bankrupted and gone out of business during the previous period of lower cost for not buying a plan.

Ultimately we end up with a single insurance policy provider, controlled entirely by the government, AKA a Government Monopoly, which requires higher and higher taxes to fund because it, like all other Governmental Programs, runs at a Net Monetary LOSS.
That's a pretty big slippery slope fallacy, unownmew. The sheer cost of a hospital stay/tests alone will likely keep people buying health insurance. Better to be safe than sorry.

Quote:
If you support 1, why wouldn't you support ALL of them?
If you like anime, why wouldn't you like 12 year old girls being tentacle raped? Unless you do, then you have even more issues to sort out.

Quote:
And I was always taught to NOT to give in to peer pressure. Why should we let our American System cave into it? Just because everyone else is lining up to jump off the fiscal cliff, doesn't mean we should too.
Because it's the right thing to do? This is more akin to "everyone else is studying for the exam, but we're not going to because WE'RE AMERICAN!" Would explain quite a few things, actually.

Quote:
The Power of Government to TAX a person's INACTION, means the government can control EVERY aspect of a person's Life. We've essentially given up EVERY Right and Freedom and Liberty we've ever had by allowing this to go though. Let's Tax a person's choice to NOT buy a Gun too then why don't we? And Tax their choice to NOT buy Green Socks. And their choice to NOT buy an iPad, and their choice to NOT buy a Rosary, or their choice to NOT regularly attend a Church. Do you see the problem now?
Yes, except literally every other decent country does this and they seem to be doing alright.

Quote:
Time will tell? No, anyone who can read, and understands economics, can tell where America is going to go under this Policy.
Have you read the law?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 03:59 PM   #29
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
It's not correct that you have to buy the insurance or else pay a penalty tax if you're below a certain income level. I don't have the magazine with me on hand but I read a Time article about the Supreme Court's decision regarding the so-called Obamacare (the one where Roberts offered a split verdict which gave Obama the health care victory but gave the Republicans the states rights stuff) and in that article they had a two-page spread laying it out in very succinct language who would be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling and by Obamacare and how, and they specifically said that it works like this:

Step 1. You have to buy health insurance.
Step 2. If you don't, you're now submitted to a penalty tax.
Step 3. However, if you're below a certain income level, the penalty tax is waved.

So it's basically a fictitious boogie man talking point whenever the Tea Party asserts that "Obamacare" will fork over lower-income families. No. The only people it will "fork over" are those middle class or upper class families who, for whatever private reasons, have up until now decided to opt out of health insurance programs. They're admittedly hit by the law, yes. But the idea there is that the cost to those families far and away offsets the much larger cost to society when they show up to the emergency room with stage 3 cancer and suddenly they need millions from the Catholic hospital's charity pot -- millions that were supposed to go to families who genuinely could not afford to cover their costs because they make less than $35,000 (or whatever the exact number is) annually. To repeat though: if you're poor in America, you will not be required to buy health insurance. So explainethed the article I don't have on me right now. But if I need to find it, I can try.

EDIT: Here's the magazine issue in question. Here's the article in question but without any of the special charts and inserts I was talking about. And while I have no freakin' clue who this is, here's one man's explanation of who pays and who doesn't and he lists off that you won't be paying the penalty tax if you’re in prison, if you’re poor, if you’re in a period of being uninsured that’s less than three months long (i.e. recently lost your job), if your religion forbids getting health insurance, and so on.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 05:55 PM   #30
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
*slow clap*
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 02:27 PM   #31
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Have you read the law?
I don't have 40+ hours to read it, and then another 40+ hours to figure out exactly what it means. I have on good authority what it does say though.

To answer you question, only portions, not it's entirety.



Quote:
Yup.
So you agree it's forcing people who don't Want Health Insurance to buy Health Insurance. Glad that's sorted.

Next they'll be forcing people who don't want to buy healthy food, to buy healthy, "organic" food.
Especially since it'll lower financial strain on the Public Health Care Option. ;)

Quote:
They wouldn't if they want to keep their workers.
A company can always hire new workers, or downsize and work with a smaller labor force, but a small company can NOT afford to pay additional health care services for each employees, and stay in business. Either way they lose workers, but at least by not providing the insurance coverage they can stay in business a little bit longer without going bankrupt.

Either way though, people lose jobs, and people lose coverage. But the company going bankrupt is far far worse for employees, since everyone loses both their coverage, AND their income.


Quote:
Leaving health insurance to the free market is fundamentally flawed, as businesses tend to try to save money rather than provide a decent product, which is what we were seeing before Obamacare. I thought Republicans were all about the right to life, but I suppose I was mistaken.
You're not looking at the whole picture....

If a company can't make a profit, it can't provide any product in the first place, be it "decent" or "terrible."

In a FREE market, companies are forced to compete with each other, both in price AND product quality. There will always be an alternative, which can be more decent quality than what you first see. And, if there is not such a quality, YOU can start your own business and provide such a "quality product" for others, and yourself.

Companies save money so that they can EXPAND, and provide More and Better Quality products to their customers. If they can't save money, they are forced to make ONLY products of quality which they can afford to offer.

What we had BEFORE Obamacare, was a mess of regulations and government intervention, and high risk and liability on the part of the companies. Although, Health CARE, has Always been provided to people needing it, The problem was people's inability to pay the high cost, which was a direct result of the major government regulations and intervention, and the high risk and liability that comes with the medical field.

For example, if Doctors weren't forced to buy Malpractice insurance, they wouldn't have to pass the direct cost of that insurance over to their customers, and the prices would all be that much lower because of it.



Quote:
That's a pretty big slippery slope fallacy, unownmew. The sheer cost of a hospital stay/tests alone will likely keep people buying health insurance. Better to be safe than sorry.
Of course they'll buy health insurance, from the government, because health care companies MUST make a profit, while Government can Run at a Net LOSS, and just tax people more to make up for it. Ultimately no Private company can run at a loss without going bankrupt, and so, the government option is ensured to be the lowest price option, which most people will gravitate towards, especially since, "they'll have to pay for it anyway, even if they don't use it, so they may as well take advantage of the government option."
Private Companies can't compete, and that's the point of the Penalty TAX cost increase.


Quote:
If you like anime, why wouldn't you like 12 year old girls being tentacle raped? Unless you do, then you have even more issues to sort out.
Touche.


Quote:
Because it's the right thing to do? This is more akin to "everyone else is studying for the exam, but we're not going to because WE'RE AMERICAN!" Would explain quite a few things, actually.
Is it? Public health insurance is the right thing to do? What about Greece? Europe is only a few years ahead of America when it comes to all these progressive governmental policies, and it's clear where they're gone. Do we really want to be like them? What makes being like them "Right"?

What's wrong with being a Shining City on a Hill, the last Bastion of Personal, and Economic freedom? What's wrong with Personal Responsibility? Putting money aside for a rainy day like a major health problem, instead of buying the newest ipad, iphone and a Plasma TV, or paying the natural consequences for failing to do so?


Quote:
Yes, except literally every other decent country does this and they seem to be doing alright.
Greece much? Euro crash?
Europe is in a major mess, because of all these progressive policies, making promises, and being unable to pay for them all.

Quote:
Have you read the law?
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
It's not correct that you have to buy the insurance or else pay a penalty tax if you're below a certain income level. I don't have the magazine with me on hand but I read a Time article about the Supreme Court's decision regarding the so-called Obamacare (the one where Roberts offered a split verdict which gave Obama the health care victory but gave the Republicans the states rights stuff) and in that article they had a two-page spread laying it out in very succinct language who would be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling and by Obamacare and how, and they specifically said that it works like this:

Step 1. You have to buy health insurance.
Step 2. If you don't, you're now submitted to a penalty tax.
Step 3. However, if you're below a certain income level, the penalty tax is waved.

So it's basically a fictitious boogie man talking point whenever the Tea Party asserts that "Obamacare" will fork over lower-income families. No. The only people it will "fork over" are those middle class or upper class families who, for whatever private reasons, have up until now decided to opt out of health insurance programs. They're admittedly hit by the law, yes. But the idea there is that the cost to those families far and away offsets the much larger cost to society when they show up to the emergency room with stage 3 cancer and suddenly they need millions from the Catholic hospital's charity pot -- millions that were supposed to go to families who genuinely could not afford to cover their costs because they make less than $35,000 (or whatever the exact number is) annually. To repeat though: if you're poor in America, you will not be required to buy health insurance. So explainethed the article I don't have on me right now. But if I need to find it, I can try.
So you're admitting that I'm going to be paying for the Healthcare of people who will NOT be paying even a small amount of their own portion?

I thought the whole idea of the individual mandate was so that people who take advantage of the system, would have to pay in to their own health care as well. Now I'm being told that, people who don't pay in, will still be covered? Those who have, "up until now, decided to opt out of health insurance programs (by living under the "poverty line"), when they show up to the emergency room with stage 3 cancer and suddenly they need millions" will be getting MY Tax dollars to pay for their care?

How is this any different than what we had BEFORE Obamacare?

Last edited by unownmew; 08-24-2012 at 02:31 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 02:41 PM   #32
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
> implying people under the poverty line intentionally can't make ends meet without help.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:53 PM   #33
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
> implying people under the poverty line intentionally can't make ends meet without help.
> implying the system couldn't possibly be gamed.

Obama, by Executive order, gutted legislative work requirements from an already passed bill from another president and another congress where he had no authority to go,, so recipients no longer have to look for a job in order to receive Government Checks made with my money.

It explicitly stated in the bill that the section he affected could not be altered.

Tell me, what benefit he could possibly get by removing the work requirements for recipients?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 03:57 PM   #34
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
So you're admitting that I'm going to be paying for the Healthcare of people who will NOT be paying even a small amount of their own portion?

I thought the whole idea of the individual mandate was so that people who take advantage of the system, would have to pay in to their own health care as well. Now I'm being told that, people who don't pay in, will still be covered? Those who have, "up until now, decided to opt out of health insurance programs (by living under the "poverty line"), when they show up to the emergency room with stage 3 cancer and suddenly they need millions" will be getting MY Tax dollars to pay for their care?

How is this any different than what we had BEFORE Obamacare?
Oh my God you're right. The only solution is to make the people pay for their own health care! But what about the people who can't afford health care? Well, we'll just give them a smaller, toned-down version of health care, funded by the Government for the People's sake, that they're still going to have to pay for.

Oh wait, that's the version of Obamacare you hold in your head and you are principally against it.

So maybe we should just say "if you don't have this expensive private health care, you can't go into the emergency room" and then see health insurance policy pricing skyrocket.

Honestly, unownmew, you're grasping at straws and arguing for argument's sake. Do you even know what you're saying? First it was "THE GUMMINT IS MAKING PEOPLE DO THINGS THIS IS SOOO UNLIBERTY" but now it's "MY TAX MONEY IS GOING TO THINGS I DON'T USE THIS IS SO UNLIBERTY"
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:18 PM   #35
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Oh my God you're right. The only solution is to make the people pay for their own health care! But what about the people who can't afford health care? Well, we'll just give them a smaller, toned-down version of health care, funded by the Government for the People's sake, that they're still going to have to pay for.

Oh wait, that's the version of Obamacare you hold in your head and you are principally against it.
Um, no, that was the healthcare system we had before Obamacare. Medical Facilities were required by law, BEFORE Obamacare, to treat life-threatening conditions without looking for payment until After the operation occurs. Everyone got Healthcare already. Obamacare was about Health Insurance, which helps mitigate Healthcare costs. It's a completely different issue.


Quote:
So maybe we should just say "if you don't have this expensive private health care, you can't go into the emergency room" and then see health insurance policy pricing skyrocket.
Better idea: Go back to the System we had before Obamacare, and then make regulatory reforms that reduces Medical care Costs, so Insurance isn't absolutely essential to cover the cost of Medical care.

Then provide tax-deducible health savings accounts to encourage people to put money away for a rainy day, like life-threatening conditions, instead of spending it.

Quote:
Honestly, unownmew, you're grasping at straws and arguing for argument's sake. Do you even know what you're saying? First it was "THE GUMMINT IS MAKING PEOPLE DO THINGS THIS IS SOOO UNLIBERTY" but now it's "MY TAX MONEY IS GOING TO THINGS I DON'T USE THIS IS SO UNLIBERTY"
I can't say both things? Why can't I have multiple arguments against Obamacare?

Yeah, Government has authority to TAX behavior and non-behavior now, and that's a major issue.
It doesn't solve the problem it was intended to solve in the first place, that's another major issue.
It's also helluva expensive, and most likely going to be impossible to balance on a budget, keeping America in debt. Another major problem.

So, that's 3 strikes against Obamacare.
I could go on if need be though, but let's just get rid of it.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 04:36 PM   #36
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Hey Mew.

Jesus was ideologically a socialist. If a portion of your money could save the lives of those who can't afford it on their own, then I'm pretty certain he would be 100% for this.

Sure, the people who sit at home and aren't a productive member of society and bringit on themselves don't deserve it (this is the part the Republicans hate, I've found, because they don't believe hard workers should be paying the expenses of the lazy, which is a fair argument, albeit flawed), but for those like, say, the old man I met in the pharmacy a few months ago, who went to buy his wife's medicine, but was told it was $750? Yes, he turned it down and solemnly walked away because he couldn't afford it. Such a thing shouldn't even be happening in this country.

So, if my contributions via a new health system will be saving lives, then you're fucking right I'm all for it, even if the truly lazy are a byproduct of the benefits.
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 06:20 PM   #37
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Out of curiosity, what is it that you do that puts you in the higher tax bracket um?
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 08:40 PM   #38
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Hey Mew.

Jesus was ideologically a socialist. If a portion of your money could save the lives of those who can't afford it on their own, then I'm pretty certain he would be 100% for this.
Not this argument again. I've already debunked it. -.-

Jesus was for Charity, NOT Taxes. There is a very clear difference between what Jesus would want and what you're talking about.

1. Taxes are MANDATORY. You can't say no, and you can't say yes. And you have very little control where your money actually goes.
--Yeah, some of your taxes will go towards helping the destitute, after the government lines their pockets with a very sizeable portion going towards "Pet Projects," "earmarks," "Pork," and then it funnels through the bureaucracy paying for stuff like paperclips, staples, and paper, and finally, the Salaries of all the government workers. When it's all said and done, maybe 30 cents of every dollar actually reaches the beneficiaries.

2. Charity is VOLUNTARY. The Essence of Christianity is, help others Because you Want to. The difference between Christianity and Every other Religion in the world, is, Christianity, in it's purest sense, entirely voluntary. If you don't want to be a Christian, that's fine, you don't have to be, if you do, you get the benefits and blessings that come from doing so. Same with Charity. In order for it to actually count, it MUST be done voluntarily. And that necessitates it NOT be done through taxation.
--When you give to a charity, a whole lot MORE of the money you give actually makes it to the beneficiaries as well, making it a FAR more worthwhile action for the recipients than a Tax.

Quote:
Sure, the people who sit at home and aren't a productive member of society and bringit on themselves don't deserve it (this is the part the Republicans hate, I've found, because they don't believe hard workers should be paying the expenses of the lazy, which is a fair argument, albeit flawed), but for those like, say, the old man I met in the pharmacy a few months ago, who went to buy his wife's medicine, but was told it was $750? Yes, he turned it down and solemnly walked away because he couldn't afford it. Such a thing shouldn't even be happening in this country.
You're right, it SHOULDN'T be happening, but it is, and a lot of the problem is directly because the government has gotten so deeply involved with it. How in the world did people manage their health care before the invention of Health Insurance and Government Welfare policies?


Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Since he's dependent on you for his food, you're ensured to always remain in power over the person you give the fish to, and you can give him as small or as big a fish as you like, depending on whether you like his behavior. He'll keep voting you in to office because he needs someone to feed him.

Teach a man to fish, you feed him for his lifetime. He's no longer dependent on you and the fish you provide. You have no power over him, no method to ensure he keeps electing you into office, because, being able to provide for himself, he has the luxury of worrying about other issues which you may not support.

Quote:
So, if my contributions via a new health system will be saving lives, then you're fucking right I'm all for it, even if the truly lazy are a byproduct of the benefits.
I'd rather donate to a charity, to save lives, than pay higher taxes, even if it means the truly lazy are a byproduct of the benefits. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muyotwo View Post
Out of curiosity, what is it that you do that puts you in the higher tax bracket um?
I'm not in the higher tax bracket, but that doesn't mean I'm jealous and terribly envious of other people's success, and think that they owe me a piece of the pie they built themselves, or need to be punished for their Wild Success in a business, in the form of higher taxes in the name of "Social Justice."
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2012, 09:54 PM   #39
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
>but that doesn't mean I'm jealous and terribly envious of other people's success, and think that they owe me a piece of the pie they built themselves,

__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 12:35 AM   #40
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
So you're admitting that I'm going to be paying for the Healthcare of people who will NOT be paying even a small amount of their own portion?

I thought the whole idea of the individual mandate was so that people who take advantage of the system, would have to pay in to their own health care as well. Now I'm being told that, people who don't pay in, will still be covered? Those who have, "up until now, decided to opt out of health insurance programs (by living under the "poverty line"), when they show up to the emergency room with stage 3 cancer and suddenly they need millions" will be getting MY Tax dollars to pay for their care?
I was just curious because you said this (bolded for emphasis)
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 12:03 PM   #41
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muyotwo View Post
I was just curious because you said this (bolded for emphasis)
I pay taxes, you pay taxes, and I'm not going to be paying for a health plan because the government compels me to, especially when the fine is cheaper, so I'll be paying the fine as long as I can.

Are you telling me that our taxes are not going to be used for Insuring other people? Just because Obama wants the higher bracket to pay more doesn't mean the lower bracket won't be paying as well. The only bracket that won't be paying for everyone else's healthcare, are the moochers and the destitute. Everyone else will be forced to bail them out.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 12:10 PM   #42
Lady Kuno
The hostess with the mostess
 
Lady Kuno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
Unownmew, I'm curious. What do you think happens if a poor person gets sent to a hospital by an ambulance.
__________________
JUST NUKE THE FUCKING SUN


PROUD OWNER OF A MISSINGNO. IN FIZZY BUBBLES
Lady Kuno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 01:05 PM   #43
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Emperor View Post
Unownmew, I'm curious. What do you think happens if a poor person gets sent to a hospital by an ambulance.
Is it not Federal Law (since before Obamacare) that the Hospital must treat the person, aka, provide Heath Care, before determining whether the person can pay for it or not?

Is this not compassionate enough? No one was denied Health Care in America before Obamacare. What is not provided is a method by which to pay for that care if the person did not already have it.

And that's What Charities and Community Fund Raisers are for. If the poor person doesn't seek help from those methods, or attempt to work off their debts themselves, they're only burning themselves.

There is absolutely no need for the Federal Government to get involved, except to repeal all the burdensome regulations they've created, that are causing the providing of Health Care to be so costly in the first place.

If there Must be some form of Federal intervention, why are tax-deductible health savings accounts not an adequate solution?
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 08:39 PM   #44
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Tyranitar

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I don't have 40+ hours to read it, and then another 40+ hours to figure out exactly what it means. I have on good authority what it does say though.

To answer you question, only portions, not it's entirety.
So you don't oppose it then, since you haven't read it? Using your own statement, that is. QED.

Quote:
So you agree it's forcing people who don't Want Health Insurance to buy Health Insurance. Glad that's sorted.
Yes, I do. Everyone should have health care so everyone else doesn't pay for their medical problems. I'd rather pay a smaller sum for someone else's health insurance than part of their $60k quadruple bypass surgery.

Quote:
Next they'll be forcing people who don't want to buy healthy food, to buy healthy, "organic" food. Especially since it'll lower financial strain on the Public Health Care Option. ;)
Why do you keep using these crazy slippery slope assumptions as proof of your argument? It doesn't work like that. For example, let's say the government bans gay marriage. They don't even leave it up to the states, they just downright say "Fuck gay people, they're never ever getting married." Next thing you know, they ban interracial marriage. And then they ban marriages sanctioned by religions that aren't Christianity, since this is a Christian nation, as you keep saying. Then, just to make sure no funny business happens, the government bans all marriages not done in the name of Protestantism, which means IF THE GOVERNMENT BANS GAY MARRIAGES, MORMONS LIKE YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED. QED.

Again, many other countries have a national health care system and nothing has gotten out of hand on the matter.

Quote:
A company can always hire new workers, or downsize and work with a smaller labor force, but a small company can NOT afford to pay additional health care services for each employees, and stay in business. Either way they lose workers, but at least by not providing the insurance coverage they can stay in business a little bit longer without going bankrupt.
Sure they can. Plenty of companies are doing that right now, why would they ever drop it if it means losing future employees?

Quote:
Either way though, people lose jobs, and people lose coverage. But the company going bankrupt is far far worse for employees, since everyone loses both their coverage, AND their income.
True, but again, companies can afford it now, and all the decent ones will be able to in the future.

Quote:
You're not looking at the whole picture....

If a company can't make a profit, it can't provide any product in the first place, be it "decent" or "terrible."
Actually, it can. Do you know the golden rule of microeconomics? Marginal cost = marginal revenue. As long as they can break even on the next item sold, they'll stay in business. Yes, the main purpose is to make a profit, but a business will stay in the market as long as they don't lose large sums of money in the immediate future.

Quote:
In a FREE market, companies are forced to compete with each other, both in price AND product quality. There will always be an alternative, which can be more decent quality than what you first see. And, if there is not such a quality, YOU can start your own business and provide such a "quality product" for others, and yourself.

Companies save money so that they can EXPAND, and provide More and Better Quality products to their customers. If they can't save money, they are forced to make ONLY products of quality which they can afford to offer.

What we had BEFORE Obamacare, was a mess of regulations and government intervention, and high risk and liability on the part of the companies. Although, Health CARE, has Always been provided to people needing it, The problem was people's inability to pay the high cost, which was a direct result of the major government regulations and intervention, and the high risk and liability that comes with the medical field.
The thing with health insurance, is that it should be the same quality for everyone. There should be no compromises in quality, or else some people are majorly fucked. If the government is mandating at least a certain quality for everyone, including themselves, then I don't see a big problem.

Quote:
For example, if Doctors weren't forced to buy Malpractice insurance, they wouldn't have to pass the direct cost of that insurance over to their customers, and the prices would all be that much lower because of it.
Malpractice insurance protects doctors and hospitals from losing money to assholes who perceive any imperfection and try to sue for a lot of money. Trust me, if some arrogant doctors didn't have malpractice insurance, you and I would be paying much more to cover those costs.

Quote:
Of course they'll buy health insurance, from the government, because health care companies MUST make a profit, while Government can Run at a Net LOSS, and just tax people more to make up for it. Ultimately no Private company can run at a loss without going bankrupt, and so, the government option is ensured to be the lowest price option, which most people will gravitate towards, especially since, "they'll have to pay for it anyway, even if they don't use it, so they may as well take advantage of the government option."
Private Companies can't compete, and that's the point of the Penalty TAX cost increase.
Maybe so, but if that means everyone has the same health insurance, then so be it. Health insurance shouldn't be a luxury to be bought and sold, it should be a right. Of all people, I thought you should be for the right to life.

Quote:
Is it? Public health insurance is the right thing to do? What about Greece? Europe is only a few years ahead of America when it comes to all these progressive governmental policies, and it's clear where they're gone. Do we really want to be like them? What makes being like them "Right"?
What ABOUT Greece? There are plenty of countries doing decently well economically that have nationalized health care. UK and Germany come to mind immediately, there are probably others I can't think of at the moment.

Quote:
What's wrong with being a Shining City on a Hill, the last Bastion of Personal, and Economic freedom? What's wrong with Personal Responsibility? Putting money aside for a rainy day like a major health problem, instead of buying the newest ipad, iphone and a Plasma TV, or paying the natural consequences for failing to do so?
Some people can't put enough money aside when some things cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. When I lived in Texas for a year, my family had really shitty health insurance. I had strep throat, so I went to the emergency room. Seeing the fucking doctor costed $500. Imagine if it was a more serious issue. People can't save and shouldn't have to save hard earned money for something that's supposed to be a right.

And there's nothing wrong with being the city on the hill, except this isn't at all a "city on the hill" scenario. This is more of a "we're the only kid in class still eating glue" scenario.

Quote:
Greece much? Euro crash?
Europe is in a major mess, because of all these progressive policies, making promises, and being unable to pay for them all.
Germany much? UK much? You'd be surprised of all the things we could do if we actually just sat down and thought about things before coming to a conclusion.[/quote]

Quote:
See above.
no u
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 08:43 AM   #45
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
So you don't oppose it then, since you haven't read it? Using your own statement, that is. QED.
By my statement, if I read the law I would be opposed to it, but there is no qualifier for not reading the law, so I can still oppose it.


Quote:
Yes, I do. Everyone should have health care so everyone else doesn't pay for their medical problems. I'd rather pay a smaller sum for someone else's health insurance than part of their $60k quadruple bypass surgery.
So... over the course of your life you pay $40k in taxes, and those taxes go to someone's 60K quadruple bypass surgery. Congratulations, you just paid a large part of their quadruple bypass surgery.
This of course, would have happened anyway, before Obamacare, since you and the person who got the surgery paid taxes, and by law the Hospital was required to serve them their triple bypass surgery to save their life.

The difference here is, besides the problem with government gaining a new avenue to control people's lives, before Obamacare, the person getting the surgery would have had to find someway to pay for it themselves, either through working, charity, or fund raising, whereas, with Obamacare, now everyone else is getting jipped for their surgery as well.

Oh, and that's assuming the "Board of Health" or whatever approves the surgery. Which might not be the case if the person needing it was a senior citizen, since it's just not cost efficient to pay for someone who's going to die soon anyway.


Quote:
Why do you keep using these crazy slippery slope assumptions as proof of your argument? It doesn't work like that. For example, let's say the government bans gay marriage. They don't even leave it up to the states, they just downright say "Fuck gay people, they're never ever getting married." Next thing you know, they ban interracial marriage. And then they ban marriages sanctioned by religions that aren't Christianity, since this is a Christian nation, as you keep saying. Then, just to make sure no funny business happens, the government bans all marriages not done in the name of Protestantism, which means IF THE GOVERNMENT BANS GAY MARRIAGES, MORMONS LIKE YOU CAN'T GET MARRIED. QED.
Why do I keep going down the slippery slope? Because it's GOVERNMENT! Government will ALWAYS trend towards more power and control over it's citizens. This is a fact of life. Being able to tax a non-behavior, opens up the ability to tax ANY non-behavior, if it so desired, all the way down to what color socks you "don't" buy. Just because it hasn't happened YET, doesn't mean it won't in the future, but when it happens in the future, there won't be any defense against it, because THIS one still stands. Which is why it needs to die quickly.

As for your marriage comparison, that's a different story, because, Gay marriage isn't banned, it was simply never in existence in the first place. And Rather than Banning Gay marriage, government should instead reinforce Traditional Marriage. Personally, I'd rather leave it up to the states though.

Quote:
Again, many other countries have a national health care system and nothing has gotten out of hand on the matter.
You think these things happen Immediately? -.-
Government takeovers are always very long-term situations, passing several generations. You can't take a snapshot of 3 years after a policy and always see the bad effects that will arise from it, which is precisely why we need Wise Statesmen instead of Conniving Politicians in office.


Quote:
Sure they can. Plenty of companies are doing that right now, why would they ever drop it if it means losing future employees?
Plenty are, you're right, they're mostly the big Corporations (which you guys hate so much). There's also plenty that are NOT, mostly the small and recently started up businesses.

Corporations can cope with losing employees and paying higher prices, up to a point, they'll just pass the expenses on to the consumer (so everything we buy will be raised in price drastically), but most SMALL businesses, are barely surviving day-to-day with a small workforce, and a tiny profit margin. When they get hit with Obamacare's Health Insurance mandate, they'll flop. They will bankrupt, and everyone will suffer.

On top of it all, it will skyrocket the cost of start-up businesses, making it near impossible for anyone not already super rich, to start a new business.

Quote:
True, but again, companies can afford it now, and all the decent ones will be able to in the future.
Small Businesses are decent, but they have to GROW in order to offer nice benefits like that, You throw obamacare on them, before they believe they can afford it, and you will KILL them. And that should be a no-brainer for anyone who knows even a smidgen about Business.


Quote:
Actually, it can. Do you know the golden rule of microeconomics? Marginal cost = marginal revenue. As long as they can break even on the next item sold, they'll stay in business. Yes, the main purpose is to make a profit, but a business will stay in the market as long as they don't lose large sums of money in the immediate future.
Yeah, if you're continuously barely breaking even, you won't be expanding any-time soon, and any unexpected expense, such as a work accident, or a late shipment, will drive you under faster than you can say "What?"


Quote:
The thing with health insurance, is that it should be the same quality for everyone. There should be no compromises in quality, or else some people are majorly fucked. If the government is mandating at least a certain quality for everyone, including themselves, then I don't see a big problem.
The same quality for everyone? Equally Shitty? Because that's what you get when there's no competition. Government mandated quality? That sort of thing kills business faster than monopolies. When they're is no incentive to do better, you don't do better. And government will have to swoop in and save people, and eventually it becomes the sole provider, and then it can make all the cost-cutting descisions it wants, and people are left out to die.

Ask anyone who's had a major problem and had to deal with the European or Canadian Healthcare systems, you'll see what it means to have universal healthcare: universal long lines, universal waiting periods, and universally poor care.


Quote:
Malpractice insurance protects doctors and hospitals from losing money to assholes who perceive any imperfection and try to sue for a lot of money. Trust me, if some arrogant doctors didn't have malpractice insurance, you and I would be paying much more to cover those costs.
But if there wasn't incentive for those people to sue doctors...

Ignore the example, and look at the principle. When you add costs the Doctor has to comply with, the care costs go up to compensate. remove the costs from the doctor, and the care costs can go down.

Quote:
Maybe so, but if that means everyone has the same health insurance, then so be it. Health insurance shouldn't be a luxury to be bought and sold, it should be a right. Of all people, I thought you should be for the right to life.
Right to life does not mean right to a healthy or meaningful, or productive or problem free life. Right to life means you should not be subjected to the coercive forces of other people to kill you.

Health insurance should not, nor ever was a Right, because a Right is the Power of an entity to do something. It is something granted by virtue of your existence, not a government, and it certainly can't be created by a business.

How in the world did humanity manage in the 1700s when there was no such thing as Health Insurance?

Quote:
What ABOUT Greece? There are plenty of countries doing decently well economically that have nationalized health care. UK and Germany come to mind immediately, there are probably others I can't think of at the moment.
Collapsing Euro anyone?
Again, just because it's not happening now, does not mean it won't happen in the future, it is inevitable so long as it stands, the only question is how long it will take to reach the breaking point.


Quote:
Some people can't put enough money aside when some things cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. When I lived in Texas for a year, my family had really shitty health insurance. I had strep throat, so I went to the emergency room. Seeing the fucking doctor costed $500. Imagine if it was a more serious issue. People can't save and shouldn't have to save hard earned money for something that's supposed to be a right.
Whenever I've been sick, except when I was a small child, I've had to deal with it without any formal medical care. And I've gone without medical check-ups for over a decade.

People can't save and shouldn't be expected to save? WTF? You're telling me that people shouldn't have to be responsible for themselves and their decisions? That is absolutely INSULTING! Here I am, saving up, managing my risk, putting away for a rainy day, and trying to improve my personal financial standing by limiting my expenses and not splurging on the newest and latest gadgets and stuff, and you're telling me people should be able to get away scott-free without planning ahead for emergencies!? Insulting!

Besides, what's the difference between saving money and paying the same amount out to a health insurance agency every month? At the end of your life, if you paid into health insurance, and rarely used it, you're thousands of dollars less then you could be. If you paid into a savings account, if you didn't touch it much, you have all that money to pay for your life-threatening surgery as a senior, or you can use it as retirement. If you paid into insurance, and had to use it, you STILL have to pay for the care, you just pay LESS then you would originally. While if you had a savings account, and had use it, you might just be able to cover the entire cost yourself without needing reduced costs...

Quote:
And there's nothing wrong with being the city on the hill, except this isn't at all a "city on the hill" scenario. This is more of a "we're the only kid in class still eating glue" scenario.
Well, at least we're eating glue while everyone else is out jumping off a cliff. We may have some serious issues, but at least we're not going to die.

I don't see Europe Shining anyway. In fact, I see a debt crisis, and a monetary collapse looming on their horizon (and ours too if not reigned in quickly). Personally, I'd much rather not have that happen to America. I'd rather have my Natural, God-given, human rights and a power over my own destiny, than a thousand governmental benefits, living a luxurious life in captivity.


Quote:
Germany much? UK much? You'd be surprised of all the things we could do if we actually just sat down and thought about things before coming to a conclusion.
I thought that was the point of debate?

UK is having a monetary crisis, btw, in case you didn't notice, and while Germany isn't doing so poorly, that doesn't mean it will keep doing well, if it adopts many Progressive Liberal policies.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2012, 09:16 AM   #46
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
I got unownmew to say a bad word, do I win something?

Basically, your argument is "nothing has happened yet, BUT IT WILL!" Sure, I'll wait until something bad happens, but until then, Obamacare is the way to go. Unless you have something else to add?
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 04:21 PM   #47
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Why do I bother spending hours of my time typing up replies to educate your ignorance, when no one replies or listens to a thing I say? Maybe I should just resort to Trolling, since that's all I ever seem to get in response...

I shall think on this.

In the meantime: There's plenty of options to solve the real root problem that do not involve universal healthcare, and do not Triplicate our already $16 TRILLION dollar debt and deficit. If you're not willing to listen to them, I'm not going to waste my time. But just remember, we saw Greece's problems coming off well in advance, and knew the cause, but you want to adopt similar policies here? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 04:37 PM   #48
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
UK is having a monetary crisis, btw, in case you didn't notice, and while Germany isn't doing so poorly, that doesn't mean it will keep doing well, if it adopts many Progressive Liberal policies.
We're not recovering as well as we should from the whole American-caused international financial crisis, s'true. I think a good chunk of that can be put down to our current government - it's a coalition at the moment, and the two parties sharing power (right wing Conservatives and centre-left Liberal Democrats) don't seem to be able to agree on anything so half our news these days is "government in u-turn over *insert topic here*". Chances are one of the two major parties will re-assert control after the next election and we'll pick up again. God knows why our parties seem to be incapable of forming a working coalition government, it's not like Germany has been doing it continuously for two decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
You think these things happen Immediately? -.-
Government takeovers are always very long-term situations, passing several generations. You can't take a snapshot of 3 years after a policy and always see the bad effects that will arise from it, which is precisely why we need Wise Statesmen instead of Conniving Politicians in office.
How long then? Sixty four years? That's how long the NHS has been around. The oldest universal healthcare system dates back to 1883.

The Euro's issues are (again) absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about, so far as I can tell that's mainly because attempting to use a single currency across such disparate economies is retarded. There were supposed to be rules to make sure that economies that were too weak couldn't join, but the Greek government lied through their teeth to get in.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 08-27-2012 at 04:46 PM.
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 05:50 PM   #49
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Really? Because I think somewhat cleaning up the healthcare mess is more effective than mucking up the education system, starting a useless war, and threatening civil liberties by enacting the Patriot Act.

Don't get me wrong, Obama's not a great President, but he's definitely better than Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
effective =/= beneficial

Merkush could very well agree that Obama is a more desirable man to have sitting in the Oval Office but that doesn't mean he necessarily believes he's a more effective politician. I think it's hard to argue the facts that Bush managed to get most of what he wanted. "Give me a war in Afghanistan." Done. "Give me a war in Iraq." Done. "Give me the Patriot Act." Done. "Give me No Child Left Behind." Done. "Give me tax breaks." Done. "Give me a federal ban on embryonic stem cell research." Done. I'm sure both men have gotten a similar volume of stuff passed that doesn't catch the public's attention, but when it comes down strictly to those issues which the media reports on with zeal and which the public debates fervently, Bush got his way far more often than Obama did. Muyo is saying that that's because of the situation on Capitol Hill. Kush is saying it's because Obama doesn't know how to play the politics game as well as W. Bush did.
Talon has it bang on. Bush was much much better at playing the system, getting people to go in his general direction and about facing to make himself look like he' won the argument (Iraq notwithstanding) than Obama. And while the principles behind Romneycare 2.0 are laudable, whether you like the idea or not Obama's health legislation is a mess because individual legislators (mostly Republican but not entirely) were utter shits about it.


Can we stop giving UM jip? The bad atmosphere in the debate forum is not just his fault.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2012, 07:08 PM   #50
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
Can we stop giving UM jip? The bad atmosphere in the debate forum is not just his fault.
Despite what you may personally believe, I don't believe he's really interested in debate and finding the truth. He's made this painfully clear in the past not through his claims but through his actions. There were many, many times where were it a real debate he'd have been ejected. Muyo had little patience and blocked him very early. I gave the guy multiple chances but eventually I too had no choice but to block him, not for the efficacy but for the sheer symbolic weight of the act. And I have no intention of unblocking him. The few snippets of his posts I've seen in the past half a year from you guys quoting his posts has shown me very little growth on his part. He's the same person I put on block months back and so, no, he stays on block. He is disruptive, distracting, and frankly ruinous to most debates here. He's trollbait for members like Rangeet who aim for the low-hanging unownmew fruit rather than confronting the more intellectually challenging and credible claims made by the people on the other side of the fence from them. To put it simply, his presence does not make it easy for UPN's theists (e.g. Amras), Republicans (e.g. formerly deoxys), or Texans (e.g. formerly Muyo) to be able to defend their views. He reminds me of the disruptive redneck questioner with a John Deere baseball cap and red flannel who shows up to a scientific guest lecture and tries to hog the podium (and ends up having to be forcibly removed!) putting stupid Creationist criticism after stupid Creationist criticism to the scientist. A true waste of everyone's time. Cruel as that language sounds, that's precisely how I'd describe him.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.