Author Topic: McCain confronted: Why don’t I have the health insurance you’ve got! (Read 3379 times)

blacken700 · « **on:** August 27, 2009, 01:06:50 PM »

SAYING AND DOING ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS MR. McCAIN. America just is not ready because, if we had single-payer health insurance and suddenly realize how we've been ripped-off all these years, there would be hell to pay.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:12:43 PM »

Great point...but a single payer system is not Obama's plan.
If there is any public option passed, I believe all government officials should be on the plan.

The problem I see with a single payer system is there is not enough $ to pay for it without restricting coverage and significant rationing. It sounds good, but the reality of making it work would be extremely difficult (and costly).

The True Adonis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:15:46 PM »

Quote from: shootfighter1 on August 27, 2009, 01:12:43 PM

Great point...but a single payer system is not Obama's plan.
If there is any public option passed, I believe all government officials should be on the plan.

The problem I see with a single payer system is there is not enough $ to pay for it without restricting coverage and significant rationing. It sounds good, but the reality of making it work would be extremely difficult (and costly).

The money is certainly there and to make sure you have enough for decades and decades to come, how about slashing that bloated military budget?

What good are say 30 year old Nuclear Weapons in warehouses that we never plan to use, yet cost billions to store and maintain just as one of many examples of pointless spending?

tonymctones · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:20:37 PM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on August 27, 2009, 01:15:46 PM

The money is certainly there and to make sure you have enough for decades and decades to come, how about slashing that bloated military budget?

What good are say 30 year old Nuclear Weapons in warehouses that we never plan to use, yet cost billions to store and maintain just as one of many examples of pointless spending?

again TA whether we plan to use them or not isnt important they are the equilizers that keep us on the same level as other hostile nations that have WMD. As much as ppl say the US bullies other nations imagine if we didnt have Nuclear weapons and other hostile countries did. This is why nuclear proliferation is a pipe dream we cant get rid of ours unless they get rid of theirs and vice versa.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:22:39 PM »

Ok genius what's bloated...go ahead tell me what we need to slash. The nukes...um u arer aware that just by having em we prevent a hell of alot of chaos and our nuke program is the cornerstone of our defense posture right? Ok so what needs to be slashed....how about nothing. How about get a fucking job, pay for ur healthcare and shut the hell up. Ur healthcare concerns are not my problem. Nukes aren't about stuff..they're a deterent.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:29:44 PM »

I will also assume ur aware of the two wars we're currently invloved in...one of which Barry has said is a neccessity. That war's only getting started. We might be pulling out of Iraq but all that money saved needs to go to rebuild and replace worn out weapons systems. These wars aren't going to stop anytime soon.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #6 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:35:38 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on August 27, 2009, 01:22:39 PM

Ok genius what's bloated...go ahead tell me what we need to slash. The nukes...um u arer aware that just by having em we prevent a hell of alot of chaos and our nuke program is the cornerstone of our defense posture right? Ok so what needs to be slashed....how about nothing. How about get a fucking job, pay for ur healthcare and shut the hell up. Ur healthcare concerns are not my problem. Nukes aren't about stuff..they're a deterent.

Yes because even though it takes 6 to blow up the entire land mass of Russia, somehow we need over 10,000 of equal and greater strength.

Deterrent from what and from whom? Who is going to invade? Where are we going to Nuke?

headhuntersix · « **Reply #7 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:44:50 PM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on August 27, 2009, 01:35:38 PM

Yes because even though it takes 6 to blow up the entire land mass of Russia, somehow we need over 10,000 of equal and greater strength.

Deterrent from what and from whom? Who is going to invade? Where are we going to Nuke?

We don't have near that many anymore and they have a shelf life. We don't keep Bombers on alert and we don't have near the nuke capable subs running as we used to. Those nukes need software updates, they get retasked, refueled etc. 6 nukes huh....ok dude......TA its apparent that all things military baffle u completely.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #8 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:52:40 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on August 27, 2009, 01:44:50 PM

We don't have near that many anymore and they have a shelf life. We don't keep Bombers on alert and we don't have near the nuke capable subs running as we used to. Those nukes need software updates, they get retasked, refueled etc. 6 nukes huh....ok dude......TA its apparent that all things military baffle u completely.

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx
7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

The True Adonis · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2009, 01:55:22 PM »

18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles

Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992

headhuntersix · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:01:04 PM »

U can cut and paste all u want dude...I'm sure u will. The nukes aren't going anywhere. This argument is ridiculous. Oh and 2002 data...my comment is based on a brief I had a month ago by a retired 06 (COL) who was a nuke guy in the AF. I don't make shit up....

The True Adonis · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:03:08 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on August 27, 2009, 02:01:04 PM

U can cut and paste all u want dude...I'm sure u will. The nukes aren't going anywhere. This argument is ridiculous. Oh and 2002 data...my comment is based on a brief I had a month ago by a retired 06 (COL) who was a nuke guy in the AF. I don't make shit up....

Sure you don`t.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:14:03 PM »

But what I am gonna do is call u on shit. U cut and paste..I live this shit everyday. U read wiki....I deploy and do the shit ur reading about. I talk and work with the people who do all this stuff...u read about it and cut and paste it like u have any clue what ur talking about. U posted that the Defense budget is bloated, whats bloated about it? We've beaten the nuke thing to death, what else? U just can't stand that somebody actually knows waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more about something then u do and calls u out on it. Go ahead, cut and paste again.

What...first off we're not arguing about land..who fucking cares. I never mentioned land....and the retired Col, yeah he's a PhD in engineering and an instructor at the War College, thats the school for guys who will becomes Generals. After all there must be a reason they were given adminsitrative command in Iraq...I have no idea what ur talking about. I think ur high.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:18:32 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on August 27, 2009, 02:14:03 PM

But what I am gonna do is call u on shit. U cut and paste..I live this shit everyday. U read wiki....I deploy and do the shit ur reading about. I talk and work with the people who do all this stuff...u read about it and cut and paste it like u have any clue what ur talking about. U posted that the Defense budget is bloated, whats bloated about it? We've beaten the nuke thing to death, what else? U just can't stand that somebody actually knows waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more about something then u do and calls u out on it. Go ahead, cut and paste again.

What...first off we're not arguing about land..who fucking cares. I never mentioned land....and the retired Col, yeah he's a PhD in engineering and an instructor at the War College, thats the school for guys who will becomes Generals. After all there must be a reason they were given adminsitrative command in Iraq...I have no idea what ur talking about. I think ur high.

Blahbity Blah,

I think the Nuclear Weapons Databook Project and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project is a higher and more credible authority than you will ever be. Sorry, you are not the military expert you think you are.

The True Adonis · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:20:18 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on August 27, 2009, 02:14:03 PM

But what I am gonna do is call u on shit. U cut and paste..I live this shit everyday. U read wiki....I deploy and do the shit ur reading about. I talk and work with the people who do all this stuff...u read about it and cut and paste it like u have any clue what ur talking about. U posted that the Defense budget is bloated, whats bloated about it? We've beaten the nuke thing to death, what else? U just can't stand that somebody actually knows waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more about something then u do and calls u out on it. Go ahead, cut and paste again.

What...first off we're not arguing about land..who fucking cares. I never mentioned land....and the retired Col, yeah he's a PhD in engineering and an instructor at the War College, thats the school for guys who will becomes Generals. After all there must be a reason they were given adminsitrative command in Iraq...I have no idea what ur talking about. I think ur high.

The problem with you is that you fail in providing anything verifiable, credible or non-partisan. You always know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody.

Sorry Lieutenant, that doesn`t fly.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:24:20 PM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on August 27, 2009, 02:18:32 PM

Blahbity Blah,

I think the Nuclear Weapons Databook Project and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project is a higher and more credible authority than you will ever be. Sorry, you are not the military expert you think you are.

Damn TA:

Chemistry, physics, politics, math, music, cooking, art,

NOW NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Is there anything you cant do???

headhuntersix · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:28:43 PM »

Quote from: The True Adonis on August 27, 2009, 02:20:18 PM

The problem with you is that you fail in providing anything verifiable, credible or non-partisan. You always know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody.

Sorry Lieutenant, that doesn`t fly.

TA do u think I'm gonna post numbers here....I can verify everything I know, but I don't have to...and I'm not an LT. U cut and paste everything dude...everything, u haven't served, u have no idea. I'm still trying to figure out why u posted the land mass vs nuke land requirements. As far as knowing somebody who knows somebody...thats sorta how it works. I sit through briefs by subject matter experts...lots of em. U look shit up on wiki and paste it here.

Hey V...yeah it depends on where ur at. The AF guys don't live on the small COPS and FOBS for the most part so they have it pretty good. They bring in alot of comfort stuff but as time has gone by we get it as well. If ur on some small FOB in Afghanistan, regardless of service, life's gonna suck.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2009, 02:32:49 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on August 27, 2009, 02:24:20 PM

Damn TA:

Chemistry, physics, politics, math, music, cooking, art,

NOW NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Is there anything you cant do???

I think this falls more into defense policy and US military strategic doctrine. TA believes he can google nuke numbers and get an accurate count. Our numbers are much less then 10K at this point. Who cares, that wasn't the point. He said cut nukes....I said bullshit, here's why etc, etc...whats next. I'm still waiting.

MM2K · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2009, 11:30:27 PM »

Doesnt this dipshit realize that he wouldnt get the same type of healthcare as McCain if he had Obamacare?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #19 on:** August 28, 2009, 06:00:59 AM »

Quote from: MM2K on August 27, 2009, 11:30:27 PM

Doesnt this dipshit realize that he wouldnt get the same type of healthcare as McCain if he had Obamacare?

My lib friends call me wing nut, etc.

My question to them always: If ObamaCare is so good, why is are the Federal employees, Congressman, and Senators all exempt from this and not signing up for what they want for us?

Answer? SILENCE

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2009, 07:08:38 AM »

Adonis, you can't be serious in saying there's plenty of $ to go around. A government run plan will cost an enormous amount of $ if there isn't serious rationing of care. There will have to be major cuts from other areas. I do believe in limitations on military spending, as in all other areas of gov spending.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2009, 07:14:22 AM »

Heard a great question today:

If a government plan (and insurance seems to be moving more this way too) starts restricting tests and procedures more then there will be more missed diagnoses and likely more bad outcomes. Who will be liable, under the current system, for misdiagnoses and bad outcomes. Answer: Doctors and hospitals. This is not fair. If the gov plan (or insurance companies) are allowed to increasingly deny diagnostic or therapeutic procedures we must put in language that the doctor is not to be liable.

Howard Dean gave the most honest (and appauling) answer as to what this healthcare bill did not include measures to reduce the # of frivelous lawsuits and some kind of broad tort reform. His answer: the bill already has enough critics, we could not take on the trial lawyers. It would have killed the bill. So, the democrats, who receive tons of campaign $ from trial lawyer associations, are unwilling to address this issue because of politics.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2009, 07:18:45 AM »

Quote from: shootfighter1 on August 28, 2009, 07:14:22 AM

Heard a great question today:

If a government plan (and insurance seems to be moving more this way too) starts restricting tests and procedures more then there will be more missed diagnoses and likely more bad outcomes. Who will be liable, under the current system, for misdiagnoses and bad outcomes. Answer: Doctors and hospitals. This is not fair. If the gov plan (or insurance companies) are allowed to increasingly deny diagnostic or therapeutic procedures we must put in language that the doctor is not to be liable.

Howard Dean gave the most honest (and appauling) answer as to what this healthcare bill did not include measures to reduce the # of frivelous lawsuits and some kind of broad tort reform. His answer: the bill already has enough critics, we could not take on the trial lawyers. It would have killed the bill. So, the democrats, who receive tons of campaign $ from trial lawyer associations, are unwilling to address this issue because of politics.

THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE AS CORRUPT AS ANYONE ELSE.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2009, 09:03:53 AM »

Question to the jackass who started this thread- Was the guy who asked McCain that question a right wing lunatic paid by the insurance companies or a normal concerned citizen exercising his right to hold those in public office accountable?

Don't trip over your own stupidity trying to formulate an answer that isn't contradictory.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2009, 12:57:33 PM »

I would like to hear some responces to Howard Dean's statement posted above...anyone on the left? Or do we agree that the democrats do not want to break ranks with trial lawyers even if it benefits citizens and healthcare in general.