bascule

There's still a lot of edge cases with my HSA. My HSA is currently configured to accrue a value equal to my deductible, but that's over the course of a year. It's also my only recourse for *everything*, doctors visits, lab work, etc, at least until I've paid up to my deductible. Any healthcare costs which exceed the value presently in my HSA end up getting paid out of pocket, up to my deductible. Ouch.

There are mysteries in cosmology, but much is understood. Yes, there are four forces surrounding us: strong force weak force electromagnetic force gravitational force

navigator, the Cato Institute analysis still supports my claim: given the amount we spend on healthcare, the most spent by any country in the world even as a percentage of GDP, we do not receive the world's highest quality healthcare. The present system is monumentally inefficient and expensive.

For what it's worth, as an affluent individual I think my combination of an HSA and a high deductible health insurance plan is fairly effective, but a substantial portion of my HSA is financed by my employer and I do not believe this is a solution acceptable to the general public. I also have great concerns that my high deductible plan my even still drop me in the event of catastrophic care. To be completely comfortable with my current plan I would like government oversight which ensures that private insurers must pay out in the event of catastrophic care, leaving no room for loopholes. If I need my insurance to live they better damn well be there.

As opposed to the service provided by America's private insurance system, which pays for what is by far the world's most expensive healthcare system (even as a percentage of GDP) and also rated one of the lowest among industrialized countries? Perhaps you need to put "expensive and poor service" in context, and also recognize that just because something is provided by the private sector doesn't mean they can do a better job than the government. As far as the international track record for public healthcare systems go, they blow private ones out of the water. America's private healthcare system is absolutely abominable. The post I was responding to was still making claims of "laying the groundwork for a single-payer system", which is a vague statement I can't directly dispute. However, if you are admitting error about the current bills creating a single-payer system, I will leave it at that.

No, it's based on the fact Simultaneously revising your wording AND shifting the burden of proof! Nice try. Let's revisit your previous statement: You say the bill will create a single payer system. That means you have the burden of proof. Perhaps you'd like to defend or retract your statement that this bill is in fact a single payer system.

Considering you're ostensibly an opponent of healthcare reform who doesn't want to address the actual issues of the bills at hand but instead want to lob about ad hominems and spread disinformation, I'd say it's entirely on-topic. You're part of the problem the OP sought to point out.

You're one to talk, given you're actively disseminating disinformation. Are you still contending the proposed legislation (aside from Kucinich-Conyers) creates a single-payer system? Perhaps before levying these sorts of requests on others you could work on reducing the amount of disinformation you're disseminating yourself.

Okay, going to this link: In other words, the $23.7 trillion figure is a gross (excuse the pun) overestimate, sorry. Adding it into the US National Debt is just ludicrous.

If you want to consider a single-payer system a monopoly by a not-for-profit organization officially recognized by the US Government (but not directly part of it, ala the Federal Reserve) so be it. Note that this is not what the proposed legislation (aside from Kucinich's bill) would do. It would merely provide a public option which people could choose to use if they so desire.

Okay, I know I said I was done discussing things with you, but... WHAT? There is only one bill before Congress right now that would create a single payer healthcare system, and that's HR 676, the Kucinich-Conyers bill. That is not the bill we're discussing here. If you think "Obamacare" is a single payer healthcare system perhaps you're confused as to what a single payer healthcare system is. Here's a hint: it has a single payer. It would not include a public option in addition to the existing multi-payer private healthcare system. The public option would be the only option, as in HR 676. In fact, Obama's former GP has denounced Obamacare, advocating a single payer healthcare system instead: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/30/obamas-doctor-opposes-health-care-plan-calls-single-payer/ Calling the present bills a single-payer system is not only flat out wrong, it's an insult to people like me who actually do support a single-payer system.

I think logic languages are an interesting thought experiment but generally impractical for most applications. I've seen some people attempt herculean tasks with logic languages and get extremely frustrated when they can't quite pull them off.

Yes, "depending on your perspective", what? You're saying that "death panels" are an apt description of anything in the proposed legislation? Okay, so here you are complaining that the proponents of healthcare reform are the ones negatively impacting the political discourse, and you're here talking about death panels, awesome. Discussion over.

You mean the ones making up stories about Obama having death panels? http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d10-The-myth-of-Obamas-supposed-Death-Doctors No, of course not, clearly the liberals who support healthcare reform are the only ones at fault. So in your head, there is no truth to the idea that conservative PACs are organizing the disruption of town hall meetings, disseminating misinformation about what Obama is trying to do, and in turn negatively impacting political discourse? Perhaps it's time you evaluate yourself within the same lens of accusations and distrust with which you see others.

Can we at least get on the same page here? You're talking about TARP, not the Stimulus, right? This thread isn't about TARP. The link you posted is. You seem to be talking about TARP as well. If you would like to talk about TARP perhaps you could find a relevant thread or create your own.

The signal sent to your monitor from your computer is time coded, and scanned onto your display at a particular frequency (typically 60Hz or 75Hz)

You posted an article on TARP then went on to rag about the Stimulus. Do you realize the two are different?

Many people make unsubstantiated claims on this forum. I don't have the desire or time to Google them all. Asking other people to research claims you make rather than defending them yourself is shifting the burden of proof. You have the burden of proof. Own up to it, or retract your argument. Just F*cking Google It is not an acceptable answer, sorry. Can you knock off the constant ad hominems?

You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. I don't play go fish, sorry.

The atom. Living systems are made out of large collections of atoms. The question is nonsense. Living systems are made out of one or more cells, which are macrostructures which are made out of molecules and in turn atoms. Cars are made out of atoms. Would you ask what part of an atom is a car? I think you're confusing "aware" with "react". Awareness implies consciousness. The reactions of most life systems to their environment (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria, protists) is little more than a chemical reaction to the outside environment. This makes them no more "aware" of their outside environment than your thermostat clicking on whenever a room gets too cold. Mind is a metaphysical construct which arises from the brain, which is part of the body. There is no "spirit". Consciousness is presently only exhibited by living systems, but that does not preclude non-living systems from becoming conscious any more than animals being the only things that could fly precluding the creation of airplanes. Once man has mastered the principles behind consciousness (or more specifically, the physical systems which implement consciousness such as the human brain) man will be able to create non-living (in the traditional sense) conscious entities. Do airplanes have to be alive in order to fly? There is no different at the sub-atomic level between the living and the non-living. Life systems are made out of the same elementary particles as the rest of the universe. Living systems exhibit cellular respiration. When cellular respiration ceases, so does life. No, I'm talking about Hofstadter's idea of Strange Loops I'm afraid I've run out of gas responding to your Herculean post. Sorry.

Are you actually here to discuss things or do you just like reading your own unsubstantiated invective?

Actually, you didn't. iNow certainly did in the OP. Try again. Harder, this time?

Wow, did you just comma splice the statement "of course two wrongs don't make a right" with a challenge for me to find PACs on the right in opposition of the healthcare bill. Why? Would that somehow vindicate liberal pro-healthcare PACs in your eyes (thus two wrongs making a right)? I think you're missing the bigger picture... Are you unfamiliar with the concept of Political Action Committees? Yes, people actually pay money (on both sides of the table) to advance political causes. An example of an exclusively anti-healthcare conservative PAC is Patients United Now They are a subgroup of the larger conservative PAC Americans for Propsperity. Some other PACs channeling money into opposing healthcare (and in turn helping to organize the town hall disruptions) are FreedomWorks, American Majority, and The Sam Adams Society.

navigator, Two wrongs make a right? We have people lying about their political affiliations, claiming they are non-partisan when they actually worked on Republican campaigns. We have members of PACs (who are organizing the "protests") showing up to town hall meetings claiming to be your average Joe. These PACs are spreading lies about Obama wanting to murder your grandma. We have death threats against Democratic Congressmen. But that's all okay because the Democrats are doing some shady stuff at town halls too?

I'd just like to see I've seen an awful lot of coverage of these (neocon PAC-moivated) town hall meeting crashings. These people have no argument. They have no real position other than that the Democrats are doing it, therefore they're wrong. They have a whole host of disinformation they've been perpetrating. I'm not sure what's to be done.