I Suppose

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:58 am

whistlingwings wrote:1.) So death panes are real...show me the language in Obamacare, the law, that creates death panels. I'll wait here while you go find that. They don't exist. I'm not saying the law is good. But arguing that it creates death panels, when it clearly doesn't, takes away from the sane criticisms that actually have a chance of getting the law changed.


The 15-member ACA Panel will decide on which procedures are effective and how much should be paid for each procedure. The Panel will be one of the primary tools to keep exploding healthcare costs down. They will accomplish this objective by rationing care. This means if your doctor wanted to do a procedure that the Panel deamed unnecessary and no longer covered and that procedure would save your life, you die. Hence, the term Death Panel.

The Panel is similar to the panel used by the BHS (British Health Service) to ration care. There's a little thing called the Quality Year of Life, QYL. It's a euphemism that translates to this: If the procedure is deemed that it would not provide or has a a low prbability of providing another quality year of life, you don't get it. It's a death panel, with a nice name. The 15-member ACA Panel is based on the British Panel. The Death Panel is coming to hospital near you! :hi:

whistlingwings wrote:2.) Of course, unemployment numbers are fake. That's the only explanation. Is the stock market, DJIA fake too? Because as I'm sure you know those are up quite a bit.


Since when do you celebrate extended 10%+ unemployment? The real number is higher and the underemployed makes it significantly higher. We are one or two economic downturns from serious trouble. If those dips occur before we completely resolve the current mess we're in, there is a strong chance possibly see instability. Our situation isn't as stable as you perceive it to be. To use your policeman and fireman evidence against you; they're being cut in just about every small community and big city. By that (your) measure, I guess the apocalypse is near.

whistlingwings wrote:
1.) Sarah Palin believes death panels are real and global warming is fake. Anyone who has been duck hunting for more than a decade can tell you about how seasons have been extended into late January (when in most places they used to be late December), and ducks are not migrating as far or as fast, how much more mild the winters have gotten, etc.


I'm glad you base your opinions on anecdotal evidence. What were your credentials again? Your local weather patterns are not significant in the grand scheme of the global climate. What's truly comical is that the current science doesn't support you. Temps have been falling over the last 8 years.

whistlingwings wrote:2.) I don't care what John McCain would do. The question was about the tea party. A majority of the tea party is against cutting defense spending.


That's an utter falsehood. Those credentials again? Oh, I remember. You work for the DoD protecting me. Thanks. I owe you one.

You're not as clever as you think you are.

BTW, the Tea Party doesn't stand for overthrowing the federal government, just keeping it under control. That particular strawman that you and your liberal buddies have invented is particularly offensive and dangerous. You need that strawman as a way to vilify and discredit them without ever addressing what they truly stand for. The Tea Party's methods and antics may be self-defeating but, their message is the correct message.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7769
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA


Re: I Suppose

Postby boney fingers » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:01 am

whistlingwings wrote:
boney fingers:
1.) Sarah Palin believes death panels are real and global warming is fake. Anyone who has been duck hunting for more than a decade can tell you about how seasons have been extended into late January (when in most places they used to be late December), and ducks are not migrating as far or as fast, how much more mild the winters have gotten, etc.

2.) I don't care what John McCain would do. The question was about the tea party. A majority of the tea party is against cutting defense spending.



1) Death panels are fake and you can keep your plan if you like it; thanks for clearing that up. Obama, himself stated that sometimes it will be necessary to give the old lady a pill instead of treating her; this would require a "death panel". Obama also has stated that he believes a single payer system is ideal but it will require a transition. Single payer requires a "death panel" and Ill take Obama at his word when he says that is his ultimate goal. Ya, Im with Dr. Dean on this one. I think your referring to "man made" global warming, the thing where CO2 is causing temps to go up; CO2 has been rising for 15 years and temps are not going up accordingly. If man made global warming was legitimate, the people who make millions off the research would not need to fudge the numbers and repeatedly lie about it (something they have been busted for numerous times). I remember three seasons ago it froze up the first of December and never thawed until late March; our game commission took away are split and seasons been ending mid December since (they wised up and gave us a little time in January this year). That was proof that there is no man made global warming, that and the fact that ive been freezing my butt off the last few days (at least as much proof as you offered ).

2) You brought up McCain as being smart not me; I am simply showing why Palin, as dumb as she is in your eyes, tends to get it right more often then the person you see as a more intelligent choice. Now getting to defense spending; Im pretty sure most in the tea party recognize that there is tons of waste in the military and cuts are quite possible without effecting our preparedness. That being said , most also recognize that national security is one of the actual roles of the federal government and that cutting should be done in those areas that the federal government has no mandated role before we tackle cutting in one of the areas that is mandated.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: I Suppose

Postby Gunnysway » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:26 am

whistlingwings wrote:I'm sorry I hurt your feelings guys :sad: . The above is an honest answer to the op's question about why some folks, even a lot of those on the conservative side of things, don't like the tea party. My goal isn't to sh*t rainbows and skittles when I answer questions, it's to be honest. Nothing I said was to any specific person, let me make that very clear, all my comments were about the tea party in general.



For someone not wanting to sh*t rainbows and skittles, you sure paint a rosy picture of whats happening (or not happening...) in the U.S. at this time in our life... Even when Dem leadership says there are "death panels" you choose to ignore them.

If that ain't sh!tt!ng rainbows and skittles then... :huh:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 am

whistlingwings wrote: If you want to violently overthrow my government, get the heck out of my country. I didn't work in the defense department trying to keep your kids safe from foreign terrorists so that you can sit in your living room with your rem 870 super mag thinking about how you'd like to overthrow our government. F-35 to your rear end would put a quick end to that line of thinking.


Pretty sure it's MY government and MY country too, there, fella. And I suppose you're the only one who worked in the "defense department" :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: How about You get out of MY country- there, that was easy :lol3:

When it comes to my kids, I fear more from the government than from any foreign terrorist, that's for sure. And that's a damn shame.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:19 am

:lol: I knew this would bring out the more -- colorful -- DHC members.

If you think global warming is not real, even after every single scientific society on the planet that has studied the issue has concluded that it is real, and you think Obamacare has created death panels....well, then I'd say go get in your apocalypse bunker now and don't come out for 20 years :grooving:
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:30 am

whistlingwings wrote:ScaupHunter:
Name calling is not allowed. Be a man and try debate rather than name calling, this isn't high school. By the more than 4000 posts you have made in little over a year and a half, I would guess you spend most of your time here in these forums. I would suggest stepping away from the computer once in awhile. I have to go myself now to be with my family, but I'll check back in a few days. See if you can come up with an intelligent response without name calling.

cartervj:
1.) So death panes are real...show me the language in Obamacare, the law, that creates death panels. I'll wait here while you go find that. They don't exist. I'm not saying the law is good. But arguing that it creates death panels, when it clearly doesn't, takes away from the sane criticisms that actually have a chance of getting the law changed.
2.) Of course, unemployment numbers are fake. That's the only explanation. Is the stock market, DJIA fake too? Because as I'm sure you know those are up quite a bit.

boney fingers:
1.) Sarah Palin believes death panels are real and global warming is fake. Anyone who has been duck hunting for more than a decade can tell you about how seasons have been extended into late January (when in most places they used to be late December), and ducks are not migrating as far or as fast, how much more mild the winters have gotten, etc.

2.) I don't care what John McCain would do. The question was about the tea party. A majority of the tea party is against cutting defense spending.


:lol3: Bite me Knuck! :lol3: That's name calling. Troubled Tory is a moniker. Do you know the difference? Apparently not. Must be nice living in your bubble. Time to step out and breath the free air there bubble boy. That was another example of name calling just to clear that issue up for you.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby Gunnysway » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:31 am

whistlingwings wrote::lol: I knew this would bring out the more -- colorful -- DHC members.

If you think global warming is not real, even after every single scientific society on the planet that has studied the issue has concluded that it is real, and you think Obamacare has created death panels....well, then I'd say go get in your apocalypse bunker now and don't come out for 20 years :grooving:



Why would we need to?

Looks like the idea of global warming is crumbling... hence you, and the lefts "crafty" side step to the term "Climate change". Too bad all us dum redneks can't see it for what it be. :fingerhead:

And we don't "think"that there will be death panels... we were told there would be from the "brain trusts" in the Democratic party, as stated above.

You might as well go for the trifecta. You surely will mention how the stupid right wingers on this site were, for being so wrong about Obamacare... right?
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:44 am

:help: me find a peer-reviewed scientific study that debunks global warming. I'll wait. Over 4000 peer-reviewed scientific studies have stated a stance on the issue, and less than 3% have concluded that global warming is not man-made. Many of the scientists in those (old) studies have in the last few years changed their positions.

:lol: :lol: death panels :lol: :lol:
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby Gunnysway » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:13 am

:lol: :lol: Ability to bury head in sand :lol: :lol:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:26 am

Gunnysway wrote::lol: :lol: Ability to bury head in sand :lol: :lol:


Ok kid, I'll state facts, then state your facts and lets see who has their head buried in the sand.

GLOBAL WARMING FACTS
97%+ of peer-reviewed, scientific research on global warming has come to the conclusion that global warming is man-made. Source, among many others: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

DEATH PANEL FACTS
The IPAB board, the board to which "death panels" refer, only affect Medicare. Lets read that again: ONLY AFFECTS MEDICARE. The job of the board is to, yes, determine which treatments Medicare will pay for....so that we can reduce how much we spend on Medicare! Yes you read that correctly: its job is to reduce Medicare spending. If it did not exist, people on Medicare would in essence get any treatment they wanted, for free. Source: The ACA bill, for a shortened version read http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/13/demo ... revisited/
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:31 am

Just in case you don't like to read:

"The IPAB is a Medicare cost-cutting board of “experts” legally possessing the power to impose its advise, even over the desires of Congress or the president."


:clapping: MEDICARE COST-CUTTING BOARD :clapping:
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:55 am

Quickest way to cut costs? Kill the folks on it.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:59 am

whistlingwings wrote::help: me find a peer-reviewed scientific study that debunks global warming.

Yes the earth is a little warmer than it otherwise would be, but it is NOT catastrophic.

Are you referring to catastrophic warming requiring urgent action or are you talking about a small net increase with consequences that will have little effect on the quality of life?

Yes it is warmer, but the least costly thing to do by far is nothing. It sure as hell isn't drive the price of energy up dramatically and suffer all the negative consequences that come from that. Sure that will have little impact on the rich people in the rich countries, but higher energy costs will have a big negative impact on those that are not wealthy.


whistlingwings wrote:find a peer-reviewed scientific study that debunks global warming. I'll wait.

whistlingwings wrote: less than 3% have concluded that global warming is not man-made

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Found them I see.

whistlingwings wrote:Many of the scientists in those (old) studies have in the last few years changed their positions.

Yes and reduced the amount of warming and the consequences of it. Go back and look at many of the silly predictions from 15 to 20 years ago. Are they chicken little or are they boy who cried wolf? Time will tell, but they lost their credibility.

Image

whistlingwings wrote:The job of the board is to, yes, determine which treatments Medicare will pay for....so that we can reduce how much we spend on Medicare! Yes you read that correctly: its job is to reduce Medicare spending. If it did not exist, people on Medicare would in essence get any treatment they wanted, for free.
And since the country is going bankrupt, and that is the only source of health care for most of these people, will it be political and budgetary decisions or will it be based on competition in a free market where if a company offers to little coverage they will get a bad rep and lose business? It is a death panel because collectively there is nothing people can do to impact the decisions. If it is a pension or a business or private citizens, they can take their business elsewhere. It's not easy, but possible. Here, there is no mechanism of self correction and their motivation is based on federal government budgetary constraints and political expediency.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:03 am

assateague wrote:Quickest way to cut costs? Kill the folks on it.


This is true. So you guys would rather we give MORE of our money to folks on Medicare and Medicaid? The entire job of the IPAB is to keep costs under control, which means not giving everyone every single treatment they want.

________________

So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery. And actually yes, scientists also agree it is catastrophic warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most recent warning: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:07 am

50/50™ you're right.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:13 am

whistlingwings wrote:So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery. And actually yes, scientists also agree it is catastrophic warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most recent warning: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming



Oh, yeah, I found these, too:

ScientificEuropa, Jan. 3, v.6, 1043 A.D. wrote:97% of scientists agree the earth is flat, and you'll sail off the edge


Pope Urban VIII wrote:Lock Galileo up. I told you, 97% of scientists agree that the sun orbits around the earth
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:15 am

whistlingwings wrote:
So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery. And actually yes, scientists also agree it is catastrophic warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most recent warning: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming


97% number is bogus. There was a lengthy thread on this. You'll just look like a fool if you keep harping on it.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7769
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:16 am

That was hundreds of years ago. Science has gotten a little bit better than then.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:18 am

whistlingwings wrote:Just in case you don't like to read:

"The IPAB is a Medicare cost-cutting board of “experts” legally possessing the power to impose its advise, even over the desires of Congress or the president."


:clapping: MEDICARE COST-CUTTING BOARD :clapping:



So a Death Panel is ok as long as its objective is to cut cost. Hmmmm?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7769
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:19 am

whistlingwings wrote:So you guys would rather we give MORE of our money to folks on Medicare and Medicaid?
Right there is the problem. Medicare is not supposed to be your money. It is supposed to be a benefit from the money you paid in. Of course, the politicians pissed all that money away. We need to STOP doing that. Because when you get old, just like you would rather the old farts die than get more of your money, the next generation is going to want you to die and not take their money.

Whenever it is "our" money, in practice, it is the money of whoever grabs the most the quickest. Collectivism always fails for that reason. Everybody things there share of the cost is very low and their share of the benefit is very high and it leaves a big gaping hole in the balance sheet.

There is a way to do this so it is not a Ponzi scheme and it is not your money. That is why Medicare, Obamacare, Social Security, ... are all a disaster. They are not financially sound. No one would volunteer, but must be forced to pay for these ill-conceived financially unsound messes. A sound program would keep other people's hands, especially politicians, off of your money.

whistlingwings wrote:So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery. And actually yes, scientists also agree it is catastrophic warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most recent warning: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

whistlingwings wrote:So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? If it is 0.00000000000000000000001 degrees warmer, that is global warming. How much warming and what are the consequences? Are those consequences more or less severe than the consequences of trying to avoid them?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:22 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:The job of the board is to, yes, determine which treatments Medicare will pay for....so that we can reduce how much we spend on Medicare! Yes you read that correctly: its job is to reduce Medicare spending. If it did not exist, people on Medicare would in essence get any treatment they wanted, for free.
And since the country is going bankrupt, and that is the only source of health care for most of these people, will it be political and budgetary decisions or will it be based on competition in a free market where if a company offers to little coverage they will get a bad rep and lose business? It is a death panel because collectively there is nothing people can do to impact the decisions. If it is a pension or a business or private citizens, they can take their business elsewhere. It's not easy, but possible. Here, there is no mechanism of self correction and their motivation is based on federal government budgetary constraints and political expediency.



Like I said before, the Panel was based on that of the BHS that determines QYL. THere are no other options for most of those whose fate will be determined by the "experts". It's nothing less than a Death Panel.

I find it troubling that WW feels that it's perfectly acceptable for a government entity to be the final arbiter of a persons fate if that government entity is comprised of "experts" and the objective is to save money.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7769
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:23 am

whistlingwings wrote:That was hundreds of years ago. Science has gotten a little bit better than then.


You think so? In another hundred years much of what we now call fact will have been replaced with other fact. Most of today's science is driven by funding. If it is unpopular it doesn't get funded.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:59 am

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:The job of the board is to, yes, determine which treatments Medicare will pay for....so that we can reduce how much we spend on Medicare! Yes you read that correctly: its job is to reduce Medicare spending. If it did not exist, people on Medicare would in essence get any treatment they wanted, for free.
And since the country is going bankrupt, and that is the only source of health care for most of these people, will it be political and budgetary decisions or will it be based on competition in a free market where if a company offers to little coverage they will get a bad rep and lose business? It is a death panel because collectively there is nothing people can do to impact the decisions. If it is a pension or a business or private citizens, they can take their business elsewhere. It's not easy, but possible. Here, there is no mechanism of self correction and their motivation is based on federal government budgetary constraints and political expediency.



Like I said before, the Panel was based on that of the BHS that determines QYL. THere are no other options for most of those whose fate will be determined by the "experts". It's nothing less than a Death Panel.

I find it troubling that WW feels that it's perfectly acceptable for a government entity to be the final arbiter of a persons fate if that government entity is comprised of "experts" and the objective is to save money.



So you think that folks on Medicare and Medicaid should get any and all treatments that they want, on taxpayer dime? Because as I said, these "death panels" are only applicable to Medicare treatments/payements, with some minor applications to Medicaid.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:08 pm

whistlingwings wrote:So you think that folks on Medicare and Medicaid should get any and all treatments that they want, on taxpayer dime?

Medicare - it should not be determined by federal budget constraints and political expedience. It NEVER should have been a Ponzi scheme. We need to fix it so that nobody under the age of 40 has to worry about fighting for tax revenue to get life saving medical treatment. For those 55 and older, I think you are right. They need to accept that they will be more likely to die than they should be if they rely on this failed system. Between around 40 and around 55, we need some transitional system that is a mix of tax money and their own money.

Medicaid - there should be no federal welfare. If you are living off the welfare dime, you should get subpar health coverage, so yes, I agree. The Death Panel should not be kind to them. That's why most of us work hard to avoid going on welfare. If there is no cost associated with being on welfare, why would anybody go to work?

We need to change the system so government bureaucrats are not deciding who lives and who dies. The fact that such a panel is needed should be a huge red flag that the system is irreparably flawed.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16427
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:15 pm

SpinnerMan -- in regards to your "how bad is global warming?" question, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

The scientific community is in agreement that it will be very very bad if we do not reduce emissions. Sorry, but I trust the guys that study climate science every day (I hunt with one of them) more than I trust anyone that says "well it's just a LITTLE warmer, what's the harm?"

If you want a specific number - 2 degrees Celsius. This 2 degrees does not mean that in your town it will only be 2 degrees warmer. This is a global average. And a global average of 2 degrees C increase in temp will cause major major changes to our climate system, even when run in the most conservative simulations. Bird migrations are already being affected: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142642.htm
Last edited by whistlingwings on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 3 guests