Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Pimp daddy PresidentFollow

#102 Jul 14 2009 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
****
4,145 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Blusician,

Quote:
I can pretty much guarantee that I pay more taxes than you, now,


lmao...that's precious. I tell you what go ask your current insurance agent how much they make annually; and if the city is comparable to knoxville you'll begin to have an idea of how much I make.


Quote:
People without coverage (millions of them) use the ER for every ailment.


You are naive. These same people will continue to use the ER regardless of whether they qualify for free govn healthcare or not.


I don't know you, and I don't post here, but you can have the one on the right...

Screenshot


EDIT: Damn, Eels, Hovercraft, Etc.

Edited, Jul 14th 2009 12:33pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#103 Jul 14 2009 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
publiusvarus wrote:


So do we have a compromise? No smokers or obese people qualify for govn healthcare and i'll support it.



Or people who eat intensively farmed and precessed meat 3 times a day? Or people who only get off the sofa to get more beer? Or people who live off a sugar and fat diet almost exclusively?? People whose idea of being sporty is watching footie on the telly for 8 hours while eating meat sugar and fat and drinking beer???

Where do you want to draw that line?

Edited, Jul 14th 2009 8:25pm by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#104REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 12:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Blusic,
#105REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paula,
#106 Jul 14 2009 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Draw the line at people who smoke and are obese. These two characteristics place more stress on our current healthcare system than all other factors combined and then some.

Good point. While we're at it, we should stop letting our soldiers smoke!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Jul 14 2009 at 12:42 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Nevermind the fact that less than 5% of the population (homosexuals) account for nearly 80% of the aids cases. In my opinion homosexuality represents a health hazard therefore it is incumbent on the govn to not recognize such hazardous behaviour.


I told you I would save this to just copy paste. I wasn't kidding.

CBD wrote:
Your 70% (80% in this thread) figure is radically inaccurate using CDC data. The majority of the following number crunching comes from the following tables: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

16,749 cases out of a total 34,271 cases in 2007 were from MSM. This is 49% of the cases. I'm going to project this 49% to the 468,578 people who are "currently living with AIDS" as of 2007. That gives 224,917 people with AIDS solely from MSM.

The fastest site I found with U.S. population in 2007 is http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf. This gives the U.S. a population of 302 million. 4% of that number is 12,080,000 people.

Out of all gay people given the percentage you chose, approx. 1.08% of them have AIDS.

I'm aware this isn't the best reasoning. In addition, you probably meant to discuss transfer of HIV rather than cases of AIDS. Franky, if you don't care to know the difference, I don't care to do the math for that as well. The point is still there. AIDS and HIV are not running amok among gay people. Very, very few people with respect to the entire U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV. Very, very few gay people with respect to the entire homosexual U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV.

I know it's fun to thrown numbers like 4% and 70% around without having any idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately some simple math and research shows your premise as drastically faulty. Give it up already. Find a different one.

publiusvarus wrote:
Notice how regular heterosexual sex isn't considered a transmission category while male to male sexual contact is?


HIV is also more likely to spread from male to female than female to male. Probably has something to do with *****. Maybe we should mandate men to store sperm at the tender age of 15, and then castrate them to save the world a lot of trouble.

Quote:
High risk heterosexual contact is primarily people who are sleeping with hookers.


Tell that to Haiti.

Quote:
So yes homosexuality, specifically male to male, does appear to have a direct connection with the spread of aids. And this behaviour should not be recognized as anything other than a deviant one by the govn of the people.


Any sex has a direct connection with the spread of HIV. Your thought process goes haywire from "People who have sex without knowing if their partner is HIV+ are likely to get HIV." to "1.08% OF THE GAY POPULATION HAS AIDS. AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR 48% OF ALL AIDS CASES. THEREFORE GAY SEX SPREADS HIV."

No. Not at all. If anything, getting married would encourage homosexual couples to stay monogamous, thus decreasing the chance of one of them getting a partner who is HIV+.


Edited, Jul 14th 2009 4:43pm by CBD
#108 Jul 14 2009 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
You don't have to be obese or be a smoker to be be chronicly unhealthy.

The massive rise in childhood asthma over the last 30 years is something that springs to mind.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#109 Jul 14 2009 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Paula,

Quote:
Where do you want to draw that line?


Draw the line at people who smoke and are obese. These two characteristics place more stress on our current healthcare system than all other factors combined and then some.

Why should someone who made the choice to be healthy and live a healthy lifestyle be forced to pay for someone who hasn't?


Ah, but say you get rid of obesity and smokers. Then what? Then you need to discriminate against those who get too much sun... or God-forbid go TANNING! After all, they're increasing their chance of melanoma.

Something will always stress the system. Get rid of one thing, and something else will. Your complaint about paying for other people's lifestyles will continue because you don't actually care about obesity or smoking, or even people living healthy. You care about the government mandating that you help others. Don't be foolish; you'll complain about any sort of public healthcare system because of what it involves (taxes), not who is helps (millions of your fellow Americans).
#110REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 12:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thank you all for proving my point. Healthcare should be left up to the individual for all of the reasons you people just provided. Where do we draw the line? Is it just to allow the healthy to pay more than the unhealthy considering the people that treat themselves well will use the healthcare system far less than those who don't?
#111 Jul 14 2009 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Varus, You are currently paying for these people. You are paying more for these people then other countries such as the UK and Canada who have government run health care coverage systems. You are paying more as a percentage of GDP.

Even with your insurance system, you're paying for these people. So in the US not only does the government spend way more on health care then other countries, because it's such a horrible system, the individuals also have to pay more.

I cannot accept a system where a medical emergency could financially bankrupt you.

Edited, Jul 14th 2009 4:04pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#112 Jul 14 2009 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Thank you all for proving my point.


I don't think anyone here is going to believe you're smart enough to go about making a point in this manner.

What's next, all the varrus accounts have just been a giant research experiement?
#113 Jul 14 2009 at 1:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Xsarus wrote:
Varus, You are currently paying for these people. You are paying more for these people then other countries such as the UK and Canada who have government run health care coverage systems. You are paying more as a percentage of GDP.

Even with your insurance system, you're paying for these people. So in the US not only does the government spend way more on health care then other countries, because it's such a horrible system, the individuals also have to pay more.

I cannot accept a system where a medical emergency could financially bankrupt you.


Yeah, the point's already been made. He won't respond, because there is no response. If anything he'll just caw "freedom!" and "Michelle Obama is fat!" a few times.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#114 Jul 14 2009 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Samira wrote:
Xsarus wrote:
Varus, You are currently paying for these people. You are paying more for these people then other countries such as the UK and Canada who have government run health care coverage systems. You are paying more as a percentage of GDP.

Even with your insurance system, you're paying for these people. So in the US not only does the government spend way more on health care then other countries, because it's such a horrible system, the individuals also have to pay more.

I cannot accept a system where a medical emergency could financially bankrupt you.


Yeah, the point's already been made. He won't respond, because there is no response. If anything he'll just caw "freedom!" and "Michelle Obama is fat!" a few times.

:D There really needs to be an excellent+ rank
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#115REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 1:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Xarus,
#116 Jul 14 2009 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
I'm as allergic to the sun as I am allergic to cigarettes, so I'm all for outlawing tanning booths.

Simple solution: On the public option, charge a little extra to 1. people that are fat (unless there is an underlying medical reason, like thyroid issues) 2. people that smoke 3. people that tan regularly. Not too much, just maybe an extra ten bucks a month or whatever, up to $30 more a month for fat, sunburned smokers.

Do this instead of charging more to people that are 1. old 2. already sick 3. have sick relatives, like the current insurance plans do when they actually agree to insure those folks.

I could get behind that, I think.
#117REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 1:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
#118 Jul 14 2009 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
That's really helpful advice to people who can't afford it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#119 Jul 14 2009 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The point is not bs, much as you'd like it to be. You are already paying for indigent patient care. You are already paying for indigent patient care.

You are already paying for indigent patient care.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#120 Jul 14 2009 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ask anyone who needs serious medical care where they're going to get it. It sure as h*ll isn't UK, France, or Canada.


I'm sorry I wasn't born in those countries. I'll try harder next time.

P.S. - Why the fuck would I fly to France for medical care when I it's cheaper to pay out the *** for it here?
#121 Jul 14 2009 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Samy,

Quote:
Yeah, the point's already been made.


And the point was bs to begin with. Ask anyone who needs serious medical care where they're going to get it. It sure as h*ll isn't UK, France, or Canada.


Heh.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#122REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 2:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) CBD,
#123REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2009 at 2:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Red,
#124 Jul 14 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
You realize of course that's the world health organization right? Citing them on something like this is akin to asking Pelosi what she thinks of W.

No? The WHO isn't a partisan agency. Though, you also think the IPCC is a liberal conspiracy don't you?
#125 Jul 14 2009 at 2:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

No? The WHO isn't a partisan agency.


As in tied to a US political party, yes, it isn't partisan. If you mean apolitical, noooooooooooooo.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#126 Jul 14 2009 at 2:32 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,512 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
The better question is why do those people fly here if the care in the UK and France is so great?

You would be amazed at how many canadians used to apply for tenn care. Thankfully our governor has taken care of that, even though he is a democrat.



Come again?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 173 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (173)