Obameconomy <a id="follow_1260294497172272848" onclick="followToggle2(this)" href="javascript:" class="f-follow"> Follow

#154 Dec 09 2009 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent

Sage

5,684 posts

gbaji wrote:

Bardalicious wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Also, insurance should be provided by a private organization. Never by the government. The very concept is ludicrous (think about it).

I think every country that has government run healthcare would argue with you.

I also think a lot of people in this country with private health insurance would argue with you.

Small children will argue that the tooth fairy exists too.

ITT gbaji denies the existence of government run healthcare anywhere.

Lol. I suppose that's one horrible mis-reading of my meaning.

.

I can only assume that is what your posts are for.

Quote:

The point was that just because someone will argue something, doesn't make the thing they are arguing true

Don't worry, You make that point every time you post

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 3:10pm by Bardalicious

#155 Dec 09 2009 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Maybe gbaji is making the distinction between insurance and health care? At a guess.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

When governments provide health care directly to the people, it's not really insurance.

And it's quite possible for private folks to purchase health care directly, without going through an insurance company.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#156 Dec 09 2009 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

gbaji wrote:

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Maybe gbaji is making the distinction between insurance and health care? At a guess.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

When governments provide health care directly to the people, it's not really insurance.

And it's quite possible for private folks to purchase health care directly, without going through an insurance company.

What's the distinction? Government run single-payer systems for health care are essentially insurance systems. You pay "premiums" via taxes and everyone gets coverage.

How is that NOT insurance? You insure the health of your citizens against whatever incidents may threaten it.

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 3:14pm by bsphil

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#157 Dec 09 2009 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

gbaji wrote:

The point was that just because someone will argue something, doesn't make the thing they are arguing true.

I completely agree with this.

#158 Dec 09 2009 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

We've had this discussion before. It's silly to argue "red state" vs "blue state" in this context because those terms typically only apply to how a state voted in the last Presidential election...

It's sillier to argue because it's wrong. The least educated blocs of voters do tend to vote Democratic. It's just nothing to draw any conclusions from.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#159 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 09 2009 at 3:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Paula,

#160 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 09 2009 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,

#161 Dec 09 2009 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

Jesus freaks, racists, and racist Jesus freaks.

As opposed to democrats who are comprised solely by atheists, baby killers, and dirty hippies?

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 4:32pm by publiusvarus

I'll take 'em! At least they're genuine atheists, baby killers, and dirty hippies.

____________________________

#162 Dec 09 2009 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

publiusvarus wrote:

I guess it's easier for you liberals just to make things up to explain away the data than acknowledge Democrats do pander to the uneducated solely for votes.

If I thought this were true, I might be upset. Not because of the pandering but because they're wasting their time & money on a voting bloc that comprises 4% of the electorate.

There's a much more intelligent way to make this argument which might have some truth but I'm not interested in making it for you.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#163 Dec 09 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Ash,

Quote:

Jesus freaks, racists, and racist Jesus freaks.

As opposed to democrats who are comprised solely of atheists...

You make decision making based on rational logic and objective evidence sound like a bad thing.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#164 REDACTED, Posted: Dec 09 2009 at 4:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,

#165 Dec 09 2009 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent

Sage

5,684 posts

OHH NOOO NOT ATHIESTS

OH LORDY LORDY WON'T SOMEONE SAVE US FROM THE EVIL ATHIEST MAJORITY

#166 Dec 09 2009 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent

Sage

5,684 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

The second liberals see evidence that doesn't support their agenda driven political ideology they're the first to falsify, lie, and destroy any contradictory evidence.

I was going to be witty and replace "liberals" with "conservatives" until I realized that conservatives don't even try to look for evidence.

#167 Dec 09 2009 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good

Annabella

Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase

30,106 posts

This has nothing to do with atheists vs. non-atheists.

____________________________

Turin wrote:

Seriously, what the f*ck nature?

#168 Dec 09 2009 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good

Sage

5,684 posts

Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:

This has nothing to do with atheists vs. non-atheists.

no, but it's a convenient transition to how Obama is subverting the moral fiber of the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE

#169 Dec 09 2009 at 4:24 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

publiusvarus wrote:

You know what i'm talking about.

No, I don't. I don't think you even know what you're talking about beyond "Democrats Bad!!"

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#170 Dec 09 2009 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

bsphil wrote:

gbaji wrote:

And it's quite possible for private folks to purchase health care directly, without going through an insurance company.

What's the distinction? Government run single-payer systems for health care are essentially insurance systems.

No. They are not "essentially insurance systems". An insurance system requires that those receiving the insurance pay a premium in proportion to their personal risk in relation to their personal insurance benefits. That's not even remotely like what the government is doing.

What the government is running is closer to a pension program. That's where everyone pays the same amount into a large pool, with benefits paid out based on need. Of course, it's not exactly a pension system, since even those who don't pay into it can receive the benefits.

Quote:

You pay "premiums" via taxes and everyone gets coverage.

If only those who pay premiums receive coverage, and the cost of their premiums reflects some combination of their coverage and their risk, then it's an insurance mechanism being used. The second you start covering people who didn't pay, or you disconnect premium costs from individual risk factors and coverage levels, it ceases to be insurance and becomes something else.

Quote:

How is that NOT insurance?

How is a giraffe not a bumble bee? It's not because it's not. In the same way a bicycle is not a car, or a train is not a plane, or an ice cream cone is not a hot dog. We use labels for things in order to differentiate them from other things which are not the same.

Quote:

You insure the health of your citizens against whatever incidents may threaten it.

Only if you're using a definition of "insurance" which is removed from the economic concept. There's a broad meaning of the word insurance which means simply to protect against something. Of course, using that definition to justify an argument that government health care is "insurance" is just as deceptive as calling military spending "insurance". Both are technically true, if you take a broad enough interpretation of the word. Neither describe the economic mechanism we call "insurance" though.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#171 Dec 09 2009 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

gbaji wrote:

No. They are not "essentially insurance systems". An insurance system requires that those receiving the insurance pay a premium in proportion to their personal risk in relation to their personal insurance benefits. That's not even remotely like what the government is doing.

Unless, of course, you get your insurance through a large company. Then you do not pay premiums based on your personal risk. Nor does the company you work for.

gbaji wrote:

If only those who pay premiums receive coverage, and the cost of their premiums reflects some combination of their coverage and their risk, then it's an insurance mechanism being used. The second you start covering people who didn't pay, or you disconnect premium costs from individual risk factors and coverage levels, it ceases to be insurance and becomes something else.

Unless, of course, you get your insurace through a large company that pays your premiums for you, and nothing comes out of your check, nor do you write a check to the insurance company.

So, in other words, if you get your insurance through a large company, you don't have insurance...?

#172 Dec 09 2009 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

OHH NOOO NOT ATHIESTS

OH LORDY LORDY WON'T SOMEONE SAVE US FROM THE EVIL ATHIEST MAJORITY

I WILL PRAY FOR MY ATHEIST GOD TO SMITE YOU

#173 Dec 09 2009 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

RedPhoenixxx wrote:

Quote:

He is the best the poor, uneducated, non-working, communist, welfare babies have that's for sure.

I'm still not sure how a baby can be poor, uneducated, non-working, communist and on welfare. That's some crazy babies you have in the US.

The point he's making is that all infants with Masters degrees and corporate CEO jobs are for McCain.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

#174 Dec 09 2009 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:

You make decision making based on rational logic and objective evidence

LMAO!! Good one. The second liberals see evidence that doesn't support their agenda driven political ideology they're the first to falsify, lie, and destroy any contradictory evidence.

/whoosh

Even disregarding how stupid the comment is, it wasn't even about politics, it was about religion.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

#175 Dec 09 2009 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1716164190383

Don't worry, Raptor Jesus is here to save you!

Sage

19,999 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

OHH NOOO NOT ATHIESTS

OH LORDY LORDY WON'T SOMEONE SAVE US FROM THE EVIL ATHIEST MAJORITY

#176 Dec 09 2009 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good

TirithRR

Worst. Title. Ever!

17,302 posts

bsphil wrote:

it wasn't even about politics, it was about religion.

(Social) Conservatives don't believe in separating the Church from the State, only the State from the Church.

Edited, Dec 9th 2009 6:43pm by TirithRR

____________________________

Can't sleep, clown will eat me.