Bluegrasscard Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 ...sometimes refered to as POTUS: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/finalmarch?source=20100303_bo_commit_misc Join the "Final Solution"
Run To State Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Kudos on the thread title. :clap: :thumb: Final Solution....uh huh.
Habib Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 Yes, mild healthcare reform is something akin to the Holocaust. Good point.
Bluegrasscard Posted March 3, 2010 Author Posted March 3, 2010 Yes, mild healthcare reform is something akin to the Holocaust. Good point. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/ From 1993... Subtitle: Does the Modern Bureaucratization of Medicine Risk a Return to the Horrors of National Socialist Medicine? Does the modern bureaucratization of medicine hold any real risk for a possible return with new health reforms and new medical technologies—to some of the horrors of National Socialist medicine? Removal of personal responsibility (“I was only following orders”), personal authority, and personal choice in a bureaucratized system may leave less and less room for individual ethics in the conduct of medical science and practice. But this was just some article written in 1993. It could never happen... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.
Bluegrasscard Posted March 3, 2010 Author Posted March 3, 2010 And still buying votes... http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes
75center Posted March 3, 2010 Posted March 3, 2010 And still buying votes... http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes Heh heh heh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Gunner11 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 Yes, mild healthcare reform is something akin to the Holocaust. Good point. "Mild" health care reform, should not cost trillions, yes that is with a T, of dollars. It will end up costing multiple trillions of dollars. The cost of health care will rise over time, but it will rise much more quickly due to this than if government would just stay out of it
Habib Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/ From 1993... Subtitle: Does the Modern Bureaucratization of Medicine Risk a Return to the Horrors of National Socialist Medicine? But this was just some article written in 1993. It could never happen... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html I really wish I hadn’t bothered to read that. Not only did it lack references, citations, or specific examples one could use to verify his claims, but it’s very much absurd on its face. The author insists that the bureaucratization of health care lead to the Holocaust. No, it wasn’t the racist fascism of Hitler hell-bent on racial purity and the expansion of Germany, it was Bismarck’s insurance policy. Following this author’s fallacious logic, of course, one could easily compare all countries whose governments were involved in health services and expect to find a strong correlation between health bureaucracy and racial extermination. I’ll save you the trouble, though, if you like. But, instead, we’ll prove his propositions by noting that a medical standard in Britain does not call for the resuscitation of a child born more than five months early. Ignoring that there actually had to be a law passed in this country mandating that those in need of emergency care had to be treated and not left to die (a paradox for your argument), this regrettable instance does not prove that bureaucracies lead to genocide. Though, the most absurd thing of all is that none of this has to do with any of the policies being proposed. No specifics. Just ridiculous comparisons and fallacious logic. I guess the new strategy is to “go off the reservation as far as possible and see if anyone goes with you”?
Habib Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 "Mild" health care reform, should not cost trillions, yes that is with a T, of dollars. It will end up costing multiple trillions of dollars. The cost of health care will rise over time, but it will rise much more quickly due to this than if government would just stay out of it According to the CBO it would reduce the deficit, which I think is a good thing. How would it raise the cost of healthcare?
Clyde Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 I'm always disappointed when people fail to show respect to the office of President of the United States. Disagree all you want. Question everything as we should. However, respect the office and refer to our President by his title. I hated it when President Bush was belittled and I hate it when our current President is belittled.
shooter Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 According to the CBO it would reduce the deficit, which I think is a good thing. How would it raise the cost of healthcare? Do you believe the CBO report?
2 Humped Camel Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 As Cch5432 posted in a thread some months back..... cch5432 All Universe Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Posts: 10,158 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of you all need to check out Godwin's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Gunner11 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 According to the CBO it would reduce the deficit, which I think is a good thing. How would it raise the cost of healthcare? The predicted costs of Medicare by the Ways and Means committee in 1966 was that it would cost $3B. Based on their inflation and cost increase predictions, they expected it to cost about $12B annually in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107B. Do you really believe that or are you just playing devil's advocate here. Government involvement never means cheaper...
Run To State Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 According to the CBO it would reduce the deficit, which I think is a good thing. How would it raise the cost of healthcare?How it world will it lower the deficit? Once the government is involved the cost will only increase and up goes our taxes. I'm rather surprised you can believe what the Congressional Budget Office tells you.
Gunner11 Posted March 4, 2010 Posted March 4, 2010 How it world will it lower the deficit? Once the government is involved the cost will only increase and up goes our taxes. I'm rather surprised you can believe what the Congressional Budget Office tells you. Not to mention they convieniently removed the "doctor fix" and put it in the jobs bill, otherwise the CBO would have reported this bill to add 300 billion to the deficit...
Recommended Posts