Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#202 Mar 12 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Read the quote and think about it. If the average price is X, and anyone pays less than the average price (which is an assumption in any sort of universal health care system), then someone... wait for it... must pay more than X. It's axiomatic to the concept of an "average". The only way for no one to pay more than the average is if no one pays less than the average.

He could possibly have meant that the maximum under the new system would be less than the average under the current system.

I mean, that's still wrong, but at least it's a way for his statement to not be mathematically absurd.
#203 Mar 12 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
**
586 posts
When one of the leading causes of bankruptcy is medical bills even for those that are covered guess who gets to eat that cost. It drives the amount of the 80/20% that you and the insurers pay out to go up leading to rates going up more out pocket leading to you paying for it anyway.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 6:45am by RavennofTitan
____________________________
.
#204 Mar 12 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
If two people go into a store to buy the same shirt, but it costs one guy $5 and the other guy $20, wouldn't you say that the store owner was being unfair and treating his customers unequally? Jumping up and down and insisting it was fine because they both got the same result (the same shirt) ignores half of the issue. It's an important half.


Smiley: laugh you still don't know what universal healthcare is, even after the Obamacare discussions. If it costs so much, why does every G-8 Nation pay drastically less then the USA system costs its government. Your government ****** away over 7K per capita, Canada, U.K, France, Germany, all sit around the 3.6K mark. With Japan (also the highest rated country for life expectancy, and infant mortality.) at 2.5K.

One of these things is not like the others.



____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#205 Mar 13 2012 at 4:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.

Sure, if you believe that health insurance companies don't exist to turn a profit.

Here's the dirty little secret, they do. Government healthcare doesn't have the same issue. So, it's cheaper. Smiley: schooled


Also, your shirt analogy actually works against what you're saying. In my system, everyone pays the same for a shirt. Also there are excess shirts, so the homeless shelter down the road gets a donation of free shirts.

Everybody wins!

In your system, if you have excess chest hair, you need to pay more for a shirt.




Edited, Mar 13th 2012 6:32am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#206 Mar 13 2012 at 5:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
You shouldn't do that to analogies. They don't bend that way, and you probably left marks.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#207 Mar 13 2012 at 5:24 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Trolololo
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#208 Mar 13 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.

Sure, if you believe that health insurance companies don't exist to turn a profit.


Holy non sequitur batman! The mathematical problems with the statement I quoted have nothing to do with whether health insurance companies exist to turn a profit.

Quote:
Here's the dirty little secret, they do. Government healthcare doesn't have the same issue. So, it's cheaper. Smiley: schooled


It's not the profit motive of the insurance companies that is the problem, but that we have been pushed into our current "halfway to socialism" system, in which our government acts as a payer for large portions of our health care system. We have that system because those who favor socialized medicine made it that way. It's how socialism is applied. First you get government involved in something the free market does. This creates a "free money" dynamic and causes prices to rise. Then, you point at the high relative cost and argue that if only we eliminated the free market parts, we could do it cheaper.

The correct answer isn't to get the private for profit companies out of health care, but to get the government out of it. Then, it'll be cheap and affordable. Why? Because it will have to in order for health providers to make money. Think about it. The reason why t-shirts don't cost $500 is because no one would pay for them at that price so no company could make a profit selling them at that price. But if the government pays for it, the price of t-shirts will rise to whatever the government is willing to pay (which is a lot more than the public would directly). And along the way, the ability of anyone not having the government foot the bill to buy t-shirts will be eliminated. That's what's been happening to our health care.

Get government out of it, and prices will come down dramatically. If you have to pay your doctor right out of your own pocket, you can bet it suddenly wont cost $500 for a checkup.


Quote:
Also, your shirt analogy actually works against what you're saying. In my system, everyone pays the same for a shirt.


No, they aren't. If the t-shirts are paid for with tax dollars, then those who pay higher taxes are paying more for their shirts than the guy who is paying low (or no) taxes.

Quote:
Also there are excess shirts, so the homeless shelter down the road gets a donation of free shirts.


Yeah. Because it's "free" to make shirts. No wait! It's not. Go figure!

Quote:
Everybody wins!


No. The increasingly poor supporters of liberal social policies think they win. The reality is that everyone loses.

Quote:
In your system, if you have excess chest hair, you need to pay more for a shirt.


No. In my system, the price for a shirt is the same for everyone. Period. If you can afford a nicer shirt, you can. It's your choice. But the cost of the shirt doesn't depend on who you are, but the quality of the shirt itself. You get what you pay for. That's fair, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#209 Mar 13 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Oh. And at the risk of stating the obvious, Obamacare is not a universal health care system anyway. It's just more of the same "use government to pay for health care and drive up costs while making insurance companies a bundle" system. All Obama did was take the existing system and make it "bigger". That's the wrong direction to go unless the objective is to drive up costs.

Let's not forget that the issue here is with the government forcing people to buy insurance from those evil insurance companies which covers stuff they don't want. You get that when you support this, you're supporting padding the profits of the insurance companies, right? It's not about women's rights or women's health. It's about the government forcing people to buy a product from the insurance companies.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 1:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#210 Mar 13 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
You're right. An actual universal healthcare system would eliminate our dependence on for-profit insurance systems, which subsequently would remove the insurance/hospital contracts that lead to our inequitable system that allows the wealthy to gain access to the same treatments for lower costs than the poor can.

(Meaning, the cost of paying for insurance for a year is less than the cost of paying for the treatments yourself, assuming you are actually using doctors as frequently, which you aren't, because you cannot afford it without insurance).

The issue with our system is that people are forced to choose between paying a flat cost, which is huge and barely offers them real coverage, or paying up-front, which means they won't seek medical help outside of emergencies, and will likely be destroyed economically should anything severe actually happen.

The system we have, with medical costs being inversely proportional to your wealth, is absurd.

Furthermore, when I'm being forced to choose between the right for someone to not die from a simple infection, because they couldn't pay the medical bill for the hospital stay, and someone else paying a few hundred extra a year (when they would already be paying less overall, because of the elimination of the profit motive for the middle man), I'm definitely going for the latter.

I also like how you have to try and act like we are talking about Obamacare whenever we discuss universal healthcare. Obamacare is a bandaid on a bad system--it is not, nor has it ever been, universal healthcare. You can scream about it all you want, but that's not what the rest of us are discussing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#211 Mar 13 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's the wrong direction to go unless the objective is to drive up costs.

Agreed. We need to get away from private insurance completely. Glad we're on the same page.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#212 Mar 13 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You're right. An actual universal healthcare system would eliminate our dependence on for-profit insurance systems, which subsequently would remove the insurance/hospital contracts that lead to our inequitable system that allows the wealthy to gain access to the same treatments for lower costs than the poor can.


It's also something which the US public has consistently rejected as an ideal or objective for 80 years or so. So perhaps instead of breaking our existing health care system in order to make it "kinda like socialized medicine", we should focus on making our free market health care system work. The left in this country wants something that the overwhelming majority of the population does not. But instead of just accepting that, they work to try to force the rest into adopting something they don't want anyway. What happened to freedom?

How does anyone look at the mandates in Obamacare and think this is about rights of any kind? The means violates the defined end. If one were being honest about fighting for "health care rights", and not just fighting for "government run health care", that is. But then, there's nothing honest about how the left is proceeding with this.

Quote:
(Meaning, the cost of paying for insurance for a year is less than the cost of paying for the treatments yourself, assuming you are actually using doctors as frequently, which you aren't, because you cannot afford it without insurance).


This cannot be true. You get that, right? Let me let you in on a secret: It will always cost more to pay for health care with insurance than paying for it directly. Always. When you say it costs less, you really mean it "costs less for some people". It must cost more in total. Even if the insurance company is non-profit, it has operating costs. The total cost for the total care covered by that insurance *must* cost more than it would cost for that same care if it were paid directly by the total people who pay for the insurance.

Use your brain. You should be able to realize that this must be true. Always. You don't save money by buying insurance. You spend more money. Most people will spend far more money buying car insurance over the course of their lives then they would ever need to cover their car(s). It has to be that way, or the insurance fund will run out of money. There's no magic here.

Quote:
The issue with our system is that people are forced to choose between paying a flat cost, which is huge and barely offers them real coverage, or paying up-front, which means they won't seek medical help outside of emergencies, and will likely be destroyed economically should anything severe actually happen.


No. The problem is that we have, over the last 40 years, used the government to force people to pay for things they could pay for directly via insurance. You only need insurance to cover things that are rare and expensive. Regular checkups are (by definition) regular. Birth control is used regularly (presumably). Mammograms are performed regularly. These things should *not* be paid for via insurance. It's stupid to do so. All you accomplish is increase the total cost for those things.

But this is precisely the kind of coverage that the left has used the government to foist on us over the last several decades, and it's exactly the kind of coverage that Obamacare makes a huge point to provide. It's "comprehensive coverage". Meaning that instead of just covering you if you're in an accident or get a rare medical condition, it covers you for everyday things as well. IMO, that's when health care in the US went in the wrong direction and we only make things worse by expanding that.

Quote:
The system we have, with medical costs being inversely proportional to your wealth, is absurd.


How do you figure this? Are you honestly trying to suggest that it costs a rich person *less* money to buy health insurance than a poor person? Or are you playing games with relative costs? The hospital is going to charge the same amount for a given procedure no matter how wealthy the patient is. The only question is how that bill is paid. A free market system would simply charge the patient for the cost of that person's care. A universal health care system would have the government pay the bill, but with a progressive tax paying for it (so a wealthier person pays more for the same care). The current US system has the insurance company pay, which they passes that cost on to the pool of payees. But since *some* of those payees have their costs paid for by the government (medicare, medicaid, various state health care plans, etc), the wealthier person is paying full price for his insurance *and* paying more total taxes for the government paid portion *and* the system will charge more money because it has a large payee with no motive to keep costs down.


That's what's wrong with the US health care system (part of it anyway).

Quote:
Furthermore, when I'm being forced to choose between the right for someone to not die from a simple infection, because they couldn't pay the medical bill for the hospital stay, and someone else paying a few hundred extra a year (when they would already be paying less overall, because of the elimination of the profit motive for the middle man), I'm definitely going for the latter.


That's one huge freaking false dilemma. A "simple infection" should not cost that much to treat. It's only because of the government intervention into the system, and the mass of bureaucracy and paperwork that brings coupled with the "free money" aspect of government payments that causes costs for what should be simple and cheap procedures to be monumentally expensive. We've created a "buy-in" cost for health care. Used to be, if you got sick, you showed up at a doctor's office, and got treatment and the doctor charged you (and had the leeway as a private business to adjust costs based on the ability of the patient to pay). Now, the doctors don't bill you directly. They are paid by a health care association or hospital, who charge the insurance companies (or the government) for various services, and pad the bills for all the overhead that is involved, and they pass the cost on to employers, who pass it on to their employees (but often hidden from them so it's hard to know how much is actually being charged).

The result is a massive increase in costs. How much do you think it would cost for a single doctor in a small office to treat a "simple infection"? $20 maybe? It really should be that cheap. And it is that cheap (or cheaper) at the occasional free clinic type operation. It should be that cheap everywhere. But it isn't because nearly every practicing physician in the country has to operate as part of one of these big health care providers. And the cost to get care from them requires a huge up front cost. We've eliminated the direct pay for health care option almost entirely from our system. That's why costs keep going up. When you separate the buyer from the seller, there's no incentive for the buyer to demand a low price or the seller not to charge a higher price.


Imagine if you bought your food the same way you pay for health care in the US. It would be insanely expensive. Ok. It would just be insane.

Quote:
I also like how you have to try and act like we are talking about Obamacare whenever we discuss universal healthcare. Obamacare is a bandaid on a bad system--it is not, nor has it ever been, universal healthcare. You can scream about it all you want, but that's not what the rest of us are discussing.



And yet, the same people who praise the idea of universal health care also support and defend Obamacare. You'd think they'd oppose it, given that it increases costs, and put more money in the hands of insurers. But they don't.


Given that this thread is about an attempt to change just one aspect of that horrible health care law, I think it's fair for *me* to point out that what we're talking about isn't universal health care. It's not anything remotely close to it. Yet, the same people stubbornly defend Obamacare anyway. I can't figure that out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Mar 13 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's the wrong direction to go unless the objective is to drive up costs.

Agreed. We need to get away from private insurance completely. Glad we're on the same page.


There are two directions to go:

1. Get the government out of the health care industry.

2. Get the private market out of the health care industry.


The US population generally and overwhelmingly rejects option 2. Therefore, our choices really are:

1. Make things worse by keeping government involved in a system we as a people insist on running via private market mechanisms.

2. Get the government out of that system so it can work properly.


Obama chose option 1. It was a bad choice, and the result was a bad law.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 4:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#214 Mar 13 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Quote:
(Meaning, the cost of paying for insurance for a year is less than the cost of paying for the treatments yourself, assuming you are actually using doctors as frequently, which you aren't, because you cannot afford it without insurance).

This cannot be true. You get that, right? Let me let you in on a secret: It will always cost more to pay for health care with insurance than paying for it directly.

Funny. I thought eliminating the need for insurance companies would kinda eliminate insurance companies, generally speaking. Which would make your objection irrelevant. Health costs can't cost less for insurance companies if insurance companies don't exist to pay the cost.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#215 Mar 13 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji seems to want to go back to the days when you went to the local doctor's office, and paid cash, or traded a chicken, or had *** with him to pay.

If ONLY we'd do that, it would cost sooo much less for medical care.

Gbaji, longing for 1699!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#216 Mar 13 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Meaning, the cost of paying for insurance for a year is less than the cost of paying for the treatments yourself, assuming you are actually using doctors as frequently, which you aren't, because you cannot afford it without insurance).

This cannot be true. You get that, right? Let me let you in on a secret: It will always cost more to pay for health care with insurance than paying for it directly.

Funny. I thought eliminating the need for insurance companies would kinda eliminate insurance companies, generally speaking.
]

I didn't say eliminate the need for insurance companies. I said to only use insurance companies for things that we actually need insurance for. Insuring something that is a regular expense just makes that thing cost more money. If you think about how insurance works, it should be immediately apparent why it should never be used to pay for things like regular checkups, birth control, preventative care, etc.

Insurance should cover things that are rare and expensive. When you expand insurance to cover things that are common, you make those things expensive.

Quote:
Which would make your objection irrelevant. Health costs can't cost less for insurance companies if insurance companies don't exist to pay the cost.


It will cost less for the consumer though. At the very least, the cost must be higher just to pay the overhead of the insurance company managing the paperwork. In practice though, the costs also go up because you've concealed the real cost within a larger insurance system. If you simply pay X for insurance (and perhaps a small amount for co-pays), then you don't really care or even know how much the health care you just got actually cost the insurance company. If the hospital increases the cost for the medicine, and adds in some extra expenses, you wont notice because your insurance covers it. And when you insurance premium goes up down the line, you wont connect the two. More to the point, your insurance premium will go up even if you personally do check the costs and work to minimize them because most of the other people also covered by your insurance company will *not* do those things.


If you had to pay every penny out of your own pocket, you'd look over that bill with a fine toothed comb and make sure nothing is too high. And you'd challenge any questionable item on the bill, and if it was too high, you'd complain. And heaven forbid, maybe go to a different doctor next time. Competition drives prices down. The floor of the cost for something is determined by the costs to the person providing it, but the ceiling is determined by your willingness to pay for it. Insurance separates the buyer from the seller. Thus prices will be higher just because it's being paid for with insurance (on top of the extra cost of the insurance itself).


The only reason to accept the higher overall average cost for something that insurance causes is if the thing you're insuring is rare. If you have a one in a thousand chance of having something happen that costs you $50,000, it's worth paying for insurance for that thing. Odds are you wont be that one guy in a thousand that gets hit, in which case you will lose money (you're paying for insurance but never filing a claim). However, if you unlucky enough to be that one guy, you'll be covered. You're making a reverse bet essentially. There is *no* reason to pay for something that you know will happen with insurance. If you know you're going to go to the doctor for a checkup once every 6 months, then there are no odds involved. You *will* need to pay that cost twice a year. If you pay it directly, then it costs you the amount of the doctor visits. If everyone in an insurance policy buys insurance to cover the doctor visits, then each goes twice a year, the insurance company *must* increase the cost of each policy by the amount of those visits. Thus, the average increase in insurance cost will be higher than the costs saved by not just paying for the checkups directly.


The reason to use insurance to pay for such things can't be to lower prices for the consumer, because it'll raise them on average. The only reason to create this kind of system is to subsidize the costs. By hiding the direct cost from the consumer, you can make some people pay more and some people pay less for their insurance. Advocates of socialized medicine do this because it's a means to draw people into a socialized system without telling them it's socialized. The government simply mandates coverage of the insurance companies, and then provides the payment for lower income people. The net result is that the middle class folks and wealthy, who can afford to buy insurance pay full price for stuff that they wouldn't choose to use insurance to pay for if they had a choice. And on top of that, they pay the taxes which pay for the same thing for the poor. So a small number of poor people maybe make out (a bit), but everyone else gets screwed because the costs have been shifted to them.

Which is why this is sold to lower income people as a means to provide them with "affordable health care". But it's not really affordable, someone else is paying for it. But folks like Obama don't care about that. They want you used to the government stepping in an providing health care, so that down the line they can make the exact argument being made in this thread that it would cost a lot less just to take the private market parts out and have the government handle everything directly. End result is yet another industry taken over by the government. Yay socialism!


It is not about making health care more affordable. It's about making it *less* affordable so that more and more people feel they must turn to the government to help them pay for it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Mar 13 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
I'm not interested in your tirade against Obamacare, nor do I care what your point was. Mine was that your objection, that medical costs would always be cheaper for insurance companies, is clearly untrue for a system in which insurance companies don't exist or are not needed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#218 Mar 13 2012 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Gbaji seems to want to go back to the days when you went to the local doctor's office, and paid cash, or traded a chicken, or had *** with him to pay.

If ONLY we'd do that, it would cost sooo much less for medical care.

Gbaji, longing for 1699!


It wasn't that long ago (less than 50 years), when pretty much anyone could afford basic health care. Today, most people can't afford a 15 minute checkup. Something any working class person could pay for out of pocket back then. Why do you suppose this has changed? It's not like a basic checkup, or treatments for simple infections, sprained ankles, etc have gotten more complicated or more difficult to do. Quite the opposite. Medical technological advances should make most treatments much less expensive. Yet instead, costs have skyrocketed.


It is because we have eliminated competition from the market that this has happened. As I noted a couple weeks ago, you can contrast the cost changes for things like MRIs compared to procedures like laser eye surgery to see this directly. The former is covered by insurance, the latter is not. Guess which one has increased in cost over the last 20 years (dramatically), and which one is about 1/5th the cost today as it was 20 years ago? Why? Both are relatively new medical technologies. Both involve complex equipment. Why has one gotten more expensive and the other much less expensive?


Same reason why the average TV or home computer is tens of times more capable today than it was 20 years ago, and likely also about 1/5th the cost relatively speaking. Competition drives down prices. When you have a free market, new products are created all the time and improved all the time and providers find ways to make them less expensive. When you don't have a free market, improvements are slow, and costs tend to stay high.


How much do you suppose a home computer would cost today if the government had decided 20 years ago to mandate that every home must have one, and it created a program to pay for computers for any household who couldn't afford to buy one themselves? We'd all be running MSDos on 486 processors in computers costing $4-5k. Why would anyone drive the prices down? Why improve the computers? If the government's going to make up the cost for anyone who can't afford your product (and guarantee a sale), you have absolutely no reason at all to improve it or reduce the cost. Why can't people realize that this is why health care is so **** expensive? Heck, you can pretty much look at the list of things that stay expensive and don't improve much over time and correlate that directly with how much the government involves itself in that industry.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#219 Mar 13 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm not interested in your tirade against Obamacare, nor do I care what your point was. Mine was that your objection, that medical costs would always be cheaper for insurance companies, is clearly untrue for a system in which insurance companies don't exist or are not needed.


I did not say that though. I just finished explaining to you that I did not say that. So WTF? If that's all you care about, then you care about nothing since I am not making that claim at all.


And this thread is about an amendment to Obamacare, so forgive me if I occasionally reference the original topic here.


EDIT: What's bizarre isn't that you've misunderstood so completely what I said, but that you appear to have gotten it exactly backwards. My argument is that the very fact that we use insurance to pay for everyday things drives the cost up. So insurance companies pay *more* for health care than it would otherwise cost. But they just pass that cost on to the folks they insure. That's why health insurance costs have been rising steadily for the last 20-30 years. I thought I'd explained this in painfully clear language at least twice already. Do you still not understand what I'm trying to explain? Cause I can go slower and use smaller words if it'll help.

Edited, Mar 13th 2012 6:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Mar 13 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Or perhaps you just have a rather pollyanic view of the past. How many of those medical practitioners had degrees? How many people still died w/o care? It's your argument that everything was wonderful back then, you back it up.

Yeah, blame everything on big government!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#221 Mar 13 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
As I noted a couple weeks ago, you can contrast the cost changes for things like MRIs compared to procedures like laser eye surgery to see this directly

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Mar 13 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Yeah, medicine is an extremely new field in human history, but people tend to act like it's been a part of human culture for a long time. It wasn't until the 40s that most women even began giving birth in hospitals, and seeking medical care for lesser things was even more unheard of... unless you were rich.

And that's how insurance formed. Medical care was way too expensive on its own, but as the benefits of it began to be increasingly apparent (benefits that, truthfully, hadn't even appeared until recently anyway), more and more people sought a way to gain ready access to it. But even then, insurance was pretty much limited to the wealthier. First plans emerged in 1930, and by 1940 under 10% of Americans had it. And most of those were covered by community plans, where they were only serviced if they went to the specific hospitals they paid out to.

Nationalized healthcare was supposed to be a part of the New Deal. The lobbying campaign against it was the most costly in US history (at the time, of course) costing 1.5 million. McCarthyism followed those debates in post-WWII America, labeling it socialism. My favorite part about that, despite anti-communist sentiments in the US before WWII, the two were not connected until two decades later. The AMA's prime complaints was that it would put unreasonable restrictions on doctors. Those restrictions happen to all be things that are now considered common or necessary, like accountability and treatment restrictions.

But now we find ourselves in an era where we could realistically provide healthcare to every citizen, but we are still stuck thinking that it's something only the elite should be able to have access to. And that's really fucking sad.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#223 Mar 13 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Oh. And at the risk of stating the obvious, Obamacare is not a universal health care system anyway. It's just more of the same "use government to pay for health care and drive up costs while making insurance companies a bundle" system.


Smiley: laugh

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#224 Mar 14 2012 at 2:23 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Oh. And at the risk of stating the obvious, Obamacare is not a universal health care system anyway. It's just more of the same "use government to pay for health care and drive up costs while making insurance companies a bundle" system.


Smiley: laugh


I like how he complains about this. However, he, and people like him, are the problem in this scenario.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#225 Mar 14 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Oh lord, I'd like to think this strip comic is true.

Yup, I'm a reddit reposter.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#226 Mar 14 2012 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Oh lord, I'd like to think this strip comic is true.

Yup, I'm a reddit reposter.


I first saw it on tumblr, with the original poster claiming to be the photographer. I like to think it's true as well.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#227 Mar 14 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
It makes for an amusing, though completely unbelievable, story.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Mar 14 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah, medicine is an extremely new field in human history, but people tend to act like it's been a part of human culture for a long time. It wasn't until the 40s that most women even began giving birth in hospitals, and seeking medical care for lesser things was even more unheard of... unless you were rich.

And that's how insurance formed. Medical care was way too expensive on its own, but as the benefits of it began to be increasingly apparent (benefits that, truthfully, hadn't even appeared until recently anyway), more and more people sought a way to gain ready access to it. But even then, insurance was pretty much limited to the wealthier. First plans emerged in 1930, and by 1940 under 10% of Americans had it. And most of those were covered by community plans, where they were only serviced if they went to the specific hospitals they paid out to.


Health insurance for rare and expensive stuff, yes. Comprehensive care was exceptionally rare in the US until the mid to late 70s. And that happened because of the HMO Act of 1973. The government basically forced employers to offer the "choice" of a federally managed HMO (which offered comprehensive care instead of just major medical coverage which was the norm at the time) if they offered any form of health insurance at all.

It's not like health care was all snakeoil and leeches between 1940 and 1975. Health care was broadly available and affordable and certainly was performed by licensed professionals. What changed was that the government decided to move us "in the direction" of socialized medicine by using insurance as a method of subsidizing costs.The result is that costs have skyrocketed relatively speaking and more and more people can't afford to pay directly for health care and many can't afford the insurance anymore either.

That's the problem. Eliminate the mandates and that problem will diminish. Get us back to just covering rare and expensive stuff with insurance and watch the prices drop on "regular" care. No doctor would charge the kinds of prices that insurance companies pay for this stuff if their customers had to pay out of their own pockets. A free market drives down prices. The absence of a free market drives up prices.

Quote:
Nationalized healthcare was supposed to be a part of the New Deal.


And the public overwhelmingly rejected it. Since then, the political left has attempted to move the US in the direction of socialized medicine while carefully avoiding saying that's what they're doing. And their primary method to accomplish this has been to put sufficient government controls and payments into the system so as to ensure that the free market can't actually operate properly. Then, they can walk in, proclaim the existing system "broken" and get people to maybe let them institute a universal health care system.

If you recall, this is what Obama started out trying to do back during his campaign in 2008. But that didn't poll well with the public. But generic "health care reform" did, so that's what it became. Then, after going through the mill of Congress, the result was a disaster. But they'd attached so much to "passing health care reform" that liberals didn't care if it worked, or if it made things better or worse. They just wanted to pass something called "health care reform" so they could claim they did something.

It's pretty darn crappy to apparently deliberately make things worse for the public so that they'll become desperate enough to give up their opposition to what you want them to do, but that appears to be the approach the left has taken to health care. So I don't tend to give much credence when liberals argue that our existing system is too expensive. It's too expensive because they made it that way.

Quote:
But now we find ourselves in an era where we could realistically provide healthcare to every citizen...


Only if we just provide something we've labeled "healthcare" to everyone and don't care much about what it actually provides, or how much it actually costs, or whether we're trampling over a whole slew of people's rights in the process. Just because we can do a thing doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Quote:
... but we are still stuck thinking that it's something only the elite should be able to have access to.


False dilemma.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Mar 14 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Quote:
That's the problem. Eliminate the mandates and that problem will diminish. Get us back to just covering rare and expensive stuff with insurance and watch the prices drop on "regular" care. No doctor would charge the kinds of prices that insurance companies pay for this stuff if their customers had to pay out of their own pockets. A free market drives down prices. The absence of a free market drives up prices.


Smart. The fewer people we have insured, the less doctors will be able to charge. Because, I mean, they can't charge people more than they are able to pay. There's a level of morality here by which all doctors abide.
#230 Mar 14 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Back when the New Deal was being debated, a much, much lower percentage of Americans were voting. And those that were generally voted the same way powerful local leaders wanted, because of the personal benefits that endowed, without much understanding of what was actually happening. We are talking about an America where few people even had permanent residences to list on their registration, let alone one where anyone had the time to educate themselves about politics. It was essentially a war between Robber Barons, and organized crime had never been (nor been since) as significant an issue as this period. If WWII hadn't shocked the nation into unity, we'd be in a VERY different place as a nation right now, and it would not be good.

To make a statement that a majority, or minority, or whatever, of the population "supported" or "opposed" the New Deal is a joke. The fact of the matter is that politics of the time were a purely upper class system, and any attempts by the lower classes to gain representation (meaning the Populist movements) were suppressed militarily.

So no, the majority of US citizens did not disapprove of the New Deal. Nor did they approve of it. They barely understood what it was, nor did they care. That's why the AMA had to invest so much in their lobbying campaign. If most Americans were against the New Deal reforms, they wouldn't have had to invest. Doy.

Next, your understanding of health care history and insurance access is a joke. I'm not going to type out a history lesson before, because you could educate yourself if you tried. But protip: The distinction between emergency care plans and comprehensive care plans wasn't firmly established until the late 50s. Before then, emergency and comprehensive plans were the same thing, because of the way American culture dealt with the medical establishment. You didn't bring your kid to the doctor for a cold. It had nothing to do with whether or not you could afford it, you just didn't. As time went on, the combination of heightened awareness to medical progress, combined with medical scares from the Cold War, led to a significant cultural shift that caused people to begin seeing doctors for more "basic" things.

That cultural shift created the environment in which a distinction between emergency and comprehensive plans mattered, which opened that area of the discussion up. Before than it was a non-issue, because it was irrelevant.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#231 Mar 15 2012 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Guenny wrote:
Quote:
That's the problem. Eliminate the mandates and that problem will diminish. Get us back to just covering rare and expensive stuff with insurance and watch the prices drop on "regular" care. No doctor would charge the kinds of prices that insurance companies pay for this stuff if their customers had to pay out of their own pockets. A free market drives down prices. The absence of a free market drives up prices.


Smart. The fewer people we have insured, the less doctors will be able to charge. Because, I mean, they can't charge people more than they are able to pay.


Yes. You say that like you're being sarcastic, but it's absolutely true. It is, in fact, the basic cornerstone upon which modern economic theory rests. To deny this is to deny everything we know about economics. Of course prices will go down when people have to pay for things directly, and will go up when the price is hidden from them.


Quote:
There's a level of morality here by which all doctors abide.


Morality is a side issue at best here. I happen to believe that most doctors will help people in need regardless of what that person can pay. But if we have a government which will ensure that an insurance company *must* pay full price, then the doctor will charge full price to everyone. And that cost will get passed on to taxpayers and/or insurance purchasers (which often is passed on to their employees). And since that cost is usually hidden from the consumer, the doctor will tend to raise his prices over time (more correctly, the health center he works at will).

This is why health care costs keep going up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Mar 15 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Nationalized healthcare was supposed to be a part of the New Deal.


And the public overwhelmingly rejected it.



idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To make a statement that a majority, or minority, or whatever, of the population "supported" or "opposed" the New Deal is a joke.


That's not what I said. I said that the public overwhelmingly rejected Nationalized Healthcare. You know "part of the New Deal"?

Quote:
So no, the majority of US citizens did not disapprove of the New Deal.


Crazy re-telling of history aside, I didn't say that. I said they rejected Nationalized Health care. It was considered too far. ****, the biggest objection to a lot of FDR's programs was that they were socialist. This was moreso. To what degree you think "the people" did or didn't have a direct voice in that, it was one of the parts of FDR's agenda that never got implemented.

Quote:
They barely understood what it was, nor did they care.


Really? So humans were just brutal barbarians who couldn't think until when? Your generation? You're kidding, right?


Quote:
Next, your understanding of health care history and insurance access is a joke.


You saying so doesn't make it so. I'm not the one suggesting that the people weren't smart enough or didn't care enough about politics just 80 years ago. And I'm not the one suggesting that when the people tried to push for things they wanted, that they were beaten down militarily by the US government (or some other military?). You're kidding yourself if you think that today we live in a time of enlightenment where "the people" are so much smarter than they used to be and so much more able to influence their political outcomes than they were in the past. I suspect that you are just more deluded (if anything).

Quote:
But protip: The distinction between emergency care plans and comprehensive care plans wasn't firmly established until the late 50s. Before then, emergency and comprehensive plans were the same thing, because of the way American culture dealt with the medical establishment.


Um... Unless you're making a far more obtuse point than it appears, this is not true at all. Comprehensive health care plans were about providing a whole suite of health care from a single pool. They appeared most in company towns (like mining communities), where workers and their families all lived in the same area and it made sense for them all to pool their money to hire doctors to provide care for everyone. It was rare outside of that situation.

I'm honestly not sure what your point about emergency care is. Those are different issues.

Quote:
You didn't bring your kid to the doctor for a cold.


You don't bring your kid to the doctor for a cold today either. But to the point that you might seek medical care for your child if his cold becomes bad enough, you would take him to a doctor, just as you might roll into an urgent care today. The only difference is how much you are charged and who pays for it. Back then, you'd take your kid to the local doctor, he'd give him some medicine, give you some advice, etc, and then bill you for his time. Now, you get pretty much the same service, but instead of a full bill (which might be the equivalent of $20 in today's money), you'd make a co-pay (more like $5 or $10), and the rest would be paid for by your insurance. And by "the rest" I mean an amount likely to be several hundred dollars.

Quote:
It had nothing to do with whether or not you could afford it, you just didn't.


Wow. Just wow. You honestly think so? No one ever brought their kids to a doctor when they were sick, or had a flu, or sprained an ankle, or got the mumps, or measles, or any of a number of relatively minor ailments? You have a really warped idea of medical care in the early to mid 20th century.

Quote:
As time went on, the combination of heightened awareness to medical progress, combined with medical scares from the Cold War, led to a significant cultural shift that caused people to begin seeing doctors for more "basic" things.


You're kidding! You can't honestly believe this. I'm expecting someone to come popping in with a TV camera telling me this is all a joke at this point. People can and did seek out and obtain medical care for a whole variety of things. Everything from a cold, a fever, or stomach pain, to full blown infections, broken limbs, etc. And sometimes the doctors even made house calls! What a freaking amazing thing!!!

How sad must the health care you want be that you have to pretend that there wasn't anything prior to its arrival on the scene? I mean, there are some legitimate points to make about socialized medicine, but trying to pretend that regular people never sought or received medical care (even for "minor" things) prior to the implementation of early forms of socialized medicine is just insane. Of course they did! They had to. If your kid was sick, you didn't know if it was a minor cold, or a major illness that might take his life. If he didn't get better quickly, you'd take him to the doctor. Just like you would today. Nothing has changed (except more availability of over the counter medicines has made it less likely that an average "I'm sick" might end out with a doctor visit than it used to).

Have you ever spoken to anyone over the age of like 50? Talk to your parents or grandparents about what health care was like in the 40s and 50s. It's not anything like what you are describing. It was not the dark ages or anything. Quite the opposite. Health care was much more available and affordable to the average citizen back then than it is today. The medicines have gotten better but the care was just as good if not better then, and absolutely more affordable. People, average people, absolutely did just go to the doctor for checkups and for care.

Quote:
That cultural shift created the environment in which a distinction between emergency and comprehensive plans mattered, which opened that area of the discussion up. Before than it was a non-issue, because it was irrelevant.


You're dreaming. Assuming by "emergency" you mean what they used to call "major medical", then there was no such thing as "comprehensive coverage" for most people. They were absolutely very different things. I'm honestly amazed that you seem to think your vision of the US during this time period is correct. Where the **** did you get these ideas? Certainly not from actually talking to anyone who lived during that time period.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Mar 15 2012 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Ah, revisionist history at its finest. You know, you might actually be better at it than Beck.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#234 Mar 19 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, revisionist history at its finest. You know, you might actually be better at it than Beck.


No! I'm Spartacus! Really? You respond to me saying that someone else's statement is a re-writing of history by just saying that mine is instead? What are we? In kindergarten again?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#235 Mar 19 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, revisionist history at its finest. You know, you might actually be better at it than Beck.


No! I'm Spartacus! Really? You respond to me saying that someone else's statement is a re-writing of history by just saying that mine is instead? What are we? In kindergarten again?


If you were to provide a citation from a reliable source, ever, you might prove me wrong.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#236 Mar 19 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Ah, revisionist history at its finest. You know, you might actually be better at it than Beck.


No! I'm Spartacus! Really? You respond to me saying that someone else's statement is a re-writing of history by just saying that mine is instead? What are we? In kindergarten again?


If you were to provide a citation from a reliable source, ever, you might prove me wrong.


I provided exactly as much citation as the person I was responding to (you btw). If you provide sources and citations for your own claims, I'll provide them when rebutting them. Otherwise, you're presenting your opinion and I'm disagreeing with that and presenting mine. Insisting that I must provide a greater level of source support than the post I'm responding to is kinda pointless.


Feel free to support your own claims with cited sources and I'll respond in kind.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#237 Mar 19 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Well, there was the time you used this as a source to prove your theory as to why the Great Depression ended.

Or your arguments for what led to marriage benefit legislation, which you are absolutely refusing to cite with any kind of trustworthy source.

Or your insistence that there was a tangible middle class since the early Medieval period European history, when the first one began to appear during the Dutch rebellions in the late 1500s. Also, in the same thread, that the plague didn't arrive in the New World until well after it was conquered (when all historical sources show that it devastated Tenochtitlan long before Cortes arrived with his armies, having been brought there even before the Night of Sorrows).

And you will also find, in each of those links, plenty of cases where we offer you a cite and you don't offer one in rebuttal. So I'm calling bull on your above comment.

No, you never engage in revisionist history.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#238 Mar 19 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Really? You respond to me saying that someone else's statement is a re-writing of history by just saying that mine is instead? What are we? In kindergarten again?

If you're actually ******** about someone else using the "I know you are but what am I?" line, I can only guess it's because you felt you had a patent on it or something.

Maybe he should have just responded to your claims of other's "revisionist history" by saying "You're projecting!!" over and over and over again.

Edited, Mar 19th 2012 7:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239 Mar 20 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
gbaji wrote:
Otherwise, you're presenting your opinion and I'm disagreeing with that and presenting mine.
Don't be so hard on him. Not everyone is as good at presenting an opinion and insisting it's fact like you.

Edited, Mar 20th 2012 9:19am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#240 Mar 20 2012 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And you will also find, in each of those links, plenty of cases where we offer you a cite and you don't offer one in rebuttal. So I'm calling bull on your above comment.


Funny. I see pages where I offer links to sources which support what I'm saying and no one offers any source of their own, but just insists that my source don't count (for a variety of reasons). Things don't change I guess.

And I'll point out that you *still* have failed to provide sources for your own claims, even after rejecting my counter position because I didn't either. So... are you willing to apply your own rules to yourself?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Mar 20 2012 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And you will also find, in each of those links, plenty of cases where we offer you a cite and you don't offer one in rebuttal. So I'm calling bull on your above comment.


Funny. I see pages where I offer links to sources which support what I'm saying and no one offers any source of their own, but just insists that my source don't count (for a variety of reasons). Things don't change I guess.

And I'll point out that you *still* have failed to provide sources for your own claims, even after rejecting my counter position because I didn't either. So... are you willing to apply your own rules to yourself?


For a variety of reasons? HA, no. Your sources rarely count because the vast majority of them are links to opinion pieces or other non-rigorous works.

And I'll point out, once again, that I'm not required to offer evidence against you because I'm not making an argument. You expecting me to offer evidence is a logical fallacy, based in your belief that I can't provide evidence it will somehow make your argument more convincing.

I'm telling you that I see absolutely no reason to accept your premises, and the severe lack of evidence supporting you acts as evidence against you, by nature of what we are talking about (it being something that, by nature, would have been abundantly discussed in the civil forum). I'm telling you that I've rejected your argument because of your faulty premises.

I have not made an argument for why marriage benefit law was put into place, nor have I disproved your conclusion. All I have done is cast doubt on your argument. We have done so 2 ways--1. We have doubted the truth of your premises (about which we want proof). 2. We are not convinced that the logical argument is valid (that something being passed for reason X means it needs to continue to exist for reason X). If 1 is true, your argument could be valid, but not sound. If 2 is true, your argument would be invalid all together (even if your premises are false).

Therefore, because your conclusion is still up for grabs (if you can prove it), you should stop being an ignoramus and attempt to prove it. You can do this two ways. One, you can construct a new logical argument that is both valid and constructed from premises we have little cause to doubt (and you do this by offering evidence for their truth). Two, you can save your old argument by offering evidence to back up the premises we doubt, and defend the logical form (instead of just whining about the fact that we dared to question it).

There, a step by step guide to not being an idiot.

But by all means, keep ignoring that. It doesn't make you look dumb as **** at all.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#242 Mar 20 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But by all means, keep ignoring that. It doesn't make you look dumb as **** at all.

I remember when gbaji was a Sage. ****, he might have been Guru at one point, I've forgotten.

I remember way back when I didn't agree with a lot of his positions, but I respected him because he had his own reasons, and he didn't try to justify them with illogic and irrationality.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#243 Mar 20 2012 at 11:50 PM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But by all means, keep ignoring that. It doesn't make you look dumb as **** at all.

I remember when gbaji was a Sage. ****, he might have been Guru at one point, I've forgotten.

I remember way back when I didn't agree with a lot of his positions, but I respected him because he had his own reasons, and he didn't try to justify them with illogic and irrationality.


Must have been before the indoctrination set in.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#244 Mar 20 2012 at 11:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But by all means, keep ignoring that. It doesn't make you look dumb as **** at all.

I remember when gbaji was a Sage. ****, he might have been Guru at one point, I've forgotten.

I remember way back when I didn't agree with a lot of his positions, but I respected him because he had his own reasons, and he didn't try to justify them with illogic and irrationality.


I didn't frequent the cross game forums for a long time and by the time I ventured into the Asylum, he had lost them.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#245 Mar 21 2012 at 5:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
But by all means, keep ignoring that. It doesn't make you look dumb as **** at all.

I remember when gbaji was a Sage. ****, he might have been Guru at one point, I've forgotten.

I remember way back when I didn't agree with a lot of his positions, but I respected him because he had his own reasons, and he didn't try to justify them with illogic and irrationality.

He used to be fairly normal. I'm not sure what happened.
#246 Mar 21 2012 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
My theory is that since all the sensible and/or funny conservative posters left, he's feeling isolated and defensive.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#247 Mar 21 2012 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Aw Samira. Way to break my heart and feel all sad and sorry for someone I've despised for a while.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#248 Mar 21 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,514 posts
Could be just a series of really bad attempts at playing devil's advocate.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#249 Mar 21 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Could be just a series of really bad attempts at playing devil's advocate.

He's stated as much before. He's such a master debater he can take on any position, even ones that he may not necessarily believe in himself.
____________________________
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.
#250 Mar 21 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
I'm still going with "he's off his meds".
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CST
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (37)