Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you not really reading the messages you reply to, and just reacting to phrases
that catch your attention, or just to the fact that someone posted a reply to what you write?
I reply to the points that I believe warrant it.
If you make 10 points and only 2 are replied to...
you can assume I either agree with or just don't care about those other points.
I also prefer to isolate those points I respond to and to add what I consider to be clarification...
rather than to have dozens of points all mixed together like a Chef Salad (or like the ACA)
where the radishes can be hidden by the tomato and all manner of other goals and intents
(however laudable) aren't clearly delineated.
Yet if you reply to parts of points then you're not replying to points. It's like reading, "If someone commits murder, the government should put them in jail," and only responding to the part after the comma. And in the specific example I gave, you actually ignored a part of my message that answered a question you decided to ask later. So despite your claim, it actually isn't about you replying only to the points you feel warrant reply: You're evidently only reading the words that you feel you can craft a reply to, regardless of the impact on the exchange of the words you ignore. As such, your comments aren't worth reading, much less replying to.
OP, that's because the rest of us are paying in some way shape or form the benefits for the those who don't have any, you're post is very misleading, and don't call me a right winger, it's just simple facts, right now everything is completely FUBAR..
Yet if you reply to parts of points then you're not replying to points.
I prefer to think of it as an attempt at copy editing.
If the other writer had the benefit of such then their copy sh/would have avoided the yadda yadda
or preamble or obfuscation or misrepresentation (intended or not) that has been deleted
or had a phrase re-stated to be more accurate.
Quote:
As such, your comments aren't worth reading, much less replying to.
OP, that's because the rest of us are paying in some way shape or form the benefits for the those who don't have any, you're post is very misleading, and don't call me a right winger, it's just simple facts, right now everything is completely FUBAR..
And those terms - "simple facts" as you put it - have natural implications: What's "FUBAR" is that absence of ready access to jobs that would allow everyone to pay their own way and secure their future. So what's wrong with making eliminating that absence the goal? Then once that's accomplished, the opposing side will not have a leg to stand on calling for any of the "benefits" - they'd simply vanish simply on the strength of the fact that the need for them is gone.
This reminds me of the whole abortion issue: What's wrong with the goal being eliminating the need for abortion, i.e., making changes that decrease and then obviate the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy? The other side would never see it coming - no more abortions because people aren't getting pregnant unless they want to. Anyway, that's a question for another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
I prefer to think of it as an attempt at copy editing.
"Copy editing" that removes answers to questions that you yourself were then prompted to ask. It seems that you don't realize how ridiculous that, and by extension, the entire approach you're taking to engage in discussion, is. Very useful info.
Disclaimer: I just came out of surgery and so meds might be affecting my comments.
"Copy editing" that removes answers to questions that you yourself were then prompted to ask.
Could you cite an example of this?
I've not seen it.
In the most recent exchange I characterized (offered my opinion) a $1000 hospital as "modest".
Which btw is a view I continue to hold. It is a MODEST hospital bill as you'll soon see when the bills
for your current event begin to come in.
You seemed to take exception with this opinion and phrasing...
and then proceeded to point out that someone on an opinion board offered an opinion...
and then restated the exchange putting the term "inconsequential" into my mouth.
I don't believe that *anything* I've aid would lead anyone to conclude that I view running up a
bill as being inconsequential or the amount (in the pertinent context of hospitals).
Again... "modest" in the context.
Do I have that close enough to accurate for you?
In any case... I don't think we're all that far apart on the fundamentals.
Or at least not the first 80% of them
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
What's "FUBAR" is that absence of ready access to jobs that would allow everyone to pay
their own way... So what's wrong with making eliminating that absence the goal?
This reminds me of the whole abortion issue: What's wrong with the goal being eliminating the
need for abortion, i.e., making changes that decrease and then obviate the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy?
See? I agree completely with these two points.
Last edited by MrRational; 03-13-2014 at 12:37 PM..
And those terms - "simple facts" as you put it - have natural implications: What's "FUBAR" is that absence of ready access to jobs that would allow everyone to pay their own way and secure their future. So what's wrong with making eliminating that absence the goal? Then once that's accomplished, the opposing side will not have a leg to stand on calling for any of the "benefits" - they'd simply vanish simply on the strength of the fact that the need for them is gone.
This reminds me of the whole abortion issue: What's wrong with the goal being eliminating the need for abortion, i.e., making changes that decrease and then obviate the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy? The other side would never see it coming - no more abortions because people aren't getting pregnant unless they want to. Anyway, that's a question for another thread.
"Copy editing" that removes answers to questions that you yourself were then prompted to ask. It seems that you don't realize how ridiculous that, and by extension, the entire approach you're taking to engage in discussion, is. Very useful info.
Disclaimer: I just came out of surgery and so meds might be affecting my comments.
Hi bUU, hope you feel better, try not to enjoy those painkillers too much, it's becoming very bad with those happy pills out there. awhile back, I recently retired, LE/ Military, it cost us very little out of pocket for our insurance cost, and now it's costing more and more, I'm against big Govt involved with anything such as universal health care, and please don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with younger kids paying lower cost for health care, my problem is with the lazy, who are all drunks, the druggies, and are all living under the radar while hard working VETS like myself are having to chip in more to help offset their costs. But it doesn't matter, nothing is going to change no matter how much we p**s or moan, so it comes down to your personal position or station in life to figure weather your for Obamacare or not. Dang! and I am retired and "Still" happy and working again, lol.
FUBAR= F@#$ED UP BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION. LOL.
Last edited by Knightly Knight; 03-13-2014 at 01:05 PM..
You two are something else. Been enjoying the read, but some of your comments leave people wondering what your objectives really are.
I have noted on some of your posts in the past Mr.Rational that you have made some rational (no pun intended) comments on issues that have a lot of merit, imo. However, as it relates to healthcare in the US and all the problems associated with it, I'd really like to understand your thinking as to where you would like to see it go. Forgetting for the moment the impedance of Congress, as I do not personally think it realistic to count on our current government initiating any meaningful necessary changes on it's own. I believe it will only be with a significant majority will of the peopledemanding change (in a similar direction), that we might make strides.
So, if this were possible, what do you feel would be the most sensible approach? It's all too easy to criticize, but offering up possible solutions seems to elude too many commenting on this board.
You also make some good points BUU. Would like to hear your thoughts on this question as well.
I don't know what you in for, but wish you a speedy recovery.
However, as it relates to healthcare in the US and all the problems associated with it,
I'd really like to understand your thinking as to where you would like to see it go.
1) The utter evisceration of the HI companies and the AMA as we know them.
2) Lower Medicare entry to 60 (and then 55).
3) Add a back door into medicare/medicaid based on diagnosis severity (regardless of income).
4) Offer something akin to a Home Owners Policy for the occasional budget hiccup
(like our friend in the other thread surprised by a $1000 invoice)
These four things will solve 90% of the current problems.
Everyone should pay OUT OF POCKET for the $300-$2000 a year for the needs they actually have.
If your needs are structurally greater than mine... c'est la vie up to X% of gross.
You choose the level/quality/nature of care that you value... and then pay the tab for that.
But NO ONE w/should have to worry about the catastrophic or traumatic.
Hows that for a start?
We could have all FOUR in place by the end of summer if inclined.
Plans go away every year, the number of place that were discontinued this year was not out of the norm for any other year....
People didn't get "kicked out" they simply had to change plans...
No, 6 million people who had plans lost them due to Obamacare. Currently our leader is postponing most of Obamacare until he's out of office, as many more will lose their insurance.
6 milling being kicked due to Obamacare is contrary to the Presidents promise "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan". Sorry, he lied, and is terrified of having tens of millions booted prior to the 2016 election. If it was a good plan, he wouldn't be postponing it. The 6 million kicked have been very harmful to Democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's becoming very bad with those happy pills out there. awhile back, I recently retired, LE/ Military, it cost us very little out of pocket for our insurance cost, and now it's costing more and more, I'm against big Govt involved with anything such as universal health care, and please don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with younger kids paying lower cost for health care, my problem is with the lazy, who are all drunks, the druggies, and are all living under the radar while hard working VETS like myself are having to chip in more to help offset their costs. But it doesn't matter, nothing is going to change no matter how much we p**s or moan, so it comes down to your personal position or station in life to figure weather your for Obamacare or not. Dang! and I am retired and "Still" happy and working again, lol.
