Next US President

[zeusbheld]

Wow, Zeus. I think anyone who reads this can see it's obvious that YOU are taking this as a "personal affront" and a going on a rant.

I asked you some simple straightforward questions, and you're blowing your stack and stooping to name calling. Very mature on your part, buddy.

you know as well as anyone that *if* i took it as a personal affront my response would not have been a LOT more pointed. my response was milder than most of my jokes, FFS. anyone who glances through the forum can see that.

and "Mr. Fact. Checker" is stooping to name calling? are your feelings hurt? if so i offer my sincerest apologies for this horrible, horrible affront. but it's your party, you can cry if you want to. perhaps you should consider suing me.

back to my first post:

problem is, what does 'demand universal participation' mean? to me, it means you don't have the option to opt out. *and* therefore you have to pay for it, regardless of how poor you are or how little money you make.

you see where it says "to me," right? does that not imply it's MY OPINION? if not that may be the first time i've been accused of being too subtle. ever.

and if you care to read beyond theatrics, i have showed in this series of posts, the sources upon which i based my opinion. so do you think maybe, just maybe...

But let's not bother with the facts. Let's just make something up to boost the cold and wicked Hillary caricature.

is a bit of a DISTORTION? and yeah i mean the obvious way you indulge your imagination and pretend to read my mind and thus know my motives as one of those evil, Hillary-defamers.

"a few simple questions," you mean, like

Do poor people also have to pay social security tax? Do they have tax credits and other mechanisms that help offset the cost of that?

Or should people be able to opt out of that too? If you think so, you support George Bush and the neocon's approach.

correct me if i'm wrong, but we were talking about HEALTHCARE. funny *i* had that (apparently mistaken) impression. so why false analogy, if not to (through deftly placed conditionals) imply that i should be supporting Bush if i've got reservations about the Clinton plan, without having to take responsibility for that distortion? if you have a legitimate reason for this misleading argument, i'd like to know, because it sure looks like a smoke-and-mirrors act to me.

Your position on opting out of universal health care is the same as that being proposed by Bush for social security.

correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't we talking about HEALTH CARE, not SOCIAL SECURITY? DISTORT AWAY, pot.

love, kettle.

That is not the same as saying you are a Bush supporter, a fascist or supporter of terrorists.

no, because if you came out and SAID so you'd have to own it, whereas this is just an irrelevant analogy (aka a DISTORTION). or do you have some "facts" to support the implied claim that those who prefer Obama's healthcare plan over Clinton's prefer Bush's social security plan over all others? i'm eager to see those facts, otherwise its' a DISTORTION.

and as for sarcasm. you're the only one allowed to use it, now? when did that rule start? didn't get the memo, sorry.

In presenting the full quote, and in presenting the stuff from factcheck, you still haven't shown that this policy will be enforced on the backs of the poor, that they will be made to suffer because of this, or that obama's plan is better.

nor have you shown that everyone who will have to pay, including and especially middle class freelancers, WILL be able to afford it. know why? because the cutoff number has not been set yet.

do you think, if i'm in new york making US$40K a year as a freelancer, i can afford $4k in mandatory health premiums? do you think i'd be the only one in that position? do you really think the Clinton plan will subsidize such people? do you have any 'facts' to back that up, or am i the only one who has to justify my OPINION with 'facts' that don't exist yet, while you can just freely flail around making false analogies?

last i checked the poverty threshold is? US$10,400 per year.

can you say with any conviction that someone making US$20k in NYC is not 'poor'? they're making twice the national poverty threshold for a one-person household. that means they're not poor, right? has Clinton--or ANYONE--said they'd be subsidized? i haven't seen it. please enlighten me on that FACT. i might use it to change my OPINION.

Even the poor pay social security tax and get something for it in return. I dont' hear a lot protest from poor and lower income people because they can't opt out of social security. It's a universal, not a free program. Same for universal health care. Everyone has to contribute something. And when Bush proposed opt outs for social security, poor people were against it.

again, any reason why you're so convinced the analogy to social security isn't a false analogy, a distortion of your own? if i don't like the Clinton plan, am i somehow obligated to embrace Bush's?

As for your personal penury and hardship, frankly I don't give a damn.

right, so you're saying "my personal penury and hardship" shouldn't affect MY vote? i mean really---aside from the FACT that significant numbers of OTHER people will be in the same position, it shouldn't affect MY vote? you think these people don't exist? everyone in NYC is rich, and there's nobody in the same position as me?

is there a nuance that i've missed? i really don't see where preferring the Obama plan to Clinton's is such a moral outrage, nor do i see how it is "boosting the cold and wicked Hillary caricature."

Mandatory health care means I and everyone else are affected too. Those I work for don't pay for my health insurance either. (any other "facts" you would like to make up before we go on?)

and do you think everyone makes an equal amount of money, and the cost of healthcare is equal everywhere?

and as far as how MUCH it affects you, am i not mistaken or do you live in BKK where healthcare is relatively cheap? and do you not make a comfortable amount of money? are you saying the effect on you is going to be anywhere NEAR as significant as on the average freelancer in new york city? care to back that up with um... FACTS?

sorry but i really don't see where saying YOU, LOBURT OF BANGKOK, WILL NOT BE AS AFFECTED BY NATIONAL HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS AS SOMEONE WHO ALSO HAS NO HEALTHCARE AND MAKING US$40K TO US$70K IN NEW YORK CITY, is "making up facts." but sorry, your saying so sure looks like a distortion to me. and a deliberate one.

It's not all about YOU YOU YOU!

Don't you get it?

so, you're saying *i* *i* *i* should vote to screw myself, against what i perceive to be MY OWN BEST INTERESTS, and against what i perceive as the interests of uninsured people in similar positions? why is that, or just because YOU YOU YOU say i should? still waiting for *your* facts before change *my* OPINION, by the way.

also, it's worth noting that according to the NY Times US $40,000 puts one in the 56th percentile, and US$60,000 a year puts one in the 78th percentile, income-wise, in the US. funny, looking at that *fact* it seems to me, that there would be quite a few other people in the same position as me. even if by the time the plan passes and would actually be implemented, i'd likely be OUT of that position. but young, people graduate from college every year, don't they?

i'm not saying it's about ME, ME, ME, i'm saying you live in bangkok. you have cheap, plentiful healthcare. you make decent money. therefore, *you're* out of touch. don't you get it?

The country will never have universal health care if everyone who says I don't want to pay anything doesn't have to. And most of the country wants universal health care.

have you looked at the plans? coz from what i see, they look VERY similar, except for that one point. so far, in spite of wailing about the need for facts, you haven't presented any. so where are they? this would be a good point, as i'd like to see some polls reflecting your implied claim that 'most of the country' wants the Clinton plan and "most of the country' says it's the Clinton plan or nothing at all.

Seems he's not that different from other candidates who want it every which way.

whereas Clinton is?

oh yeah nice fact-filled post, Mr. Fact-Checker. i'm sure you just persuaded all those people on the fence between two candidates who are near-twins policy-wise to vote Hil instead of Barack. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Didn't say she was. Nor do I expect to persuade anyone to vote one way or the other. Clinton is far from a saint. And the same holds true for Obama. He's not some messiah sent down here to save us all from the forces of darkness. He's every bit the politician she and the others are, with all the negative connotations attached.

well i'd agree with that 100 percent. sorry if i misinterpreted what your'e saying there. i'd go so far as to say NO ONE would make it that far in politics if they weren't capable of wanting it "every which way," according to the way the polls go.

Nader being a case in point--as an activist, he was effective, as a candidate, he was a spoiler... once. and will likely be irrelevant (again) this time.

Sorry if pointing out your candidate's inconsistent or questionable statements is a personal affront that requires you to consign me to the forces of darkness.

and you've decided he's *my* candidate exactly how? i don't recall telling you *if* i voted in the new jersey democratic primary (my mailing address) let alone which WAY i voted. feel free to make up whatever you want though.

But thanks for the foaming-at-the-mouth anger and name calling. WELL PLAYED! impressive.

Maybe you would like to reread your "Why am I an a**hole" thread?

that was a journal, not a thread. maybe YOU need to reread it,, as you've either missed the point entirely or... worse. your ad homs are... boring.

so far, aside from *your* call for facts *from* me,, how many have *you* offered up?

aside from observing that the cost of the plan will affect you (without stating how much). a question: would you claim it would affect you anywhere NEAR as much as it would affect someone making under 75k in NYC? it's a direct question, not a rhetorical one, by the way. unless you are claiming that, AND CAN BACK IT UP, please withdraw your accusation, about me "making up facts."

again... in your shrill accusations of "distortion" and call for facts, did you skip over the part in MY initial post where i said "to me"? does that not rather pointedly indicate i'm offering an OPINION? and did i not provide a clear path, including links to my sources as to how i arrived at that opinion?

accuse me of whatever you want, but how about some transparency on YOUR part, instead of just bad analogies, or is that to much to ask?

so in other words... where ARE your facts?

[zeusbheld]

Guys, could you also mention briefly (or in detail) why you will be voting on either candidate? Im curious. Someone discussed the healthplans previously... anything else?

no, i don't publicly post who i'm voting for (or who i have voted for).

the differences in policy between Clinton and Obama do not appear that great to me (this based on having watched most of the debates). McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee. Nader, Paul, et al are not likely to be relevant.

the differences in policy between the democratic nominee and the republican nominee are most likely substantial, but i don't trust any politician's position statements when they're playing to their base in a primary. what they say in the general election is probably closer to how they'll behave (though i still don't trust any of 'em that much). so until the dems pick one, and the hoopla for the general election starts, as far as i'm concerned, it's wait-and-see time.

[i_love_som_tam]

what they say in the general election is probably closer to how they'll behave (though i still don't trust any of 'em that much). so until the dems pick one, and the hoopla for the general election starts, as far as i'm concerned, it's wait-and-see time.

abalone. you may end up voting republican when all is said and done.

[zeusbheld]

what they say in the general election is probably closer to how they'll behave (though i still don't trust any of 'em that much). so until the dems pick one, and the hoopla for the general election starts, as far as i'm concerned, it's wait-and-see time.

abalone. you may end up voting republican when all is said and done.

i can neither confirm nor deny the rumor that i might possibly vote republican.

however, i am adamant that i won't vote for abalone or any other shellfish. and crustaceans are right out of the question.

[i_love_som_tam]

what they say in the general election is probably closer to how they'll behave (though i still don't trust any of 'em that much). so until the dems pick one, and the hoopla for the general election starts, as far as i'm concerned, it's wait-and-see time.

abalone. you may end up voting republican when all is said and done.

i can neither confirm nor deny the rumor that i might possibly vote republican.

however, i am adamant that i won't vote for abalone or any other shellfish. and crustaceans are right out of the question.

fence walker :roll:

[zeusbheld]

what they say in the general election is probably closer to how they'll behave (though i still don't trust any of 'em that much). so until the dems pick one, and the hoopla for the general election starts, as far as i'm concerned, it's wait-and-see time.

abalone. you may end up voting republican when all is said and done.

i can neither confirm nor deny the rumor that i might possibly vote republican.

however, i am adamant that i won't vote for abalone or any other shellfish. and crustaceans are right out of the question.

fence walker :roll:

no, i am adamant that i won't vote crustacean.

[moo_noy]

hussain obama for prez, that is his real first name :wink:

[i_love_som_tam]

hussain obama for prez, that is his real first name :wink:

no.. it's barrak hussain obama.

[Loburt]

aside from observing that the cost of the plan will affect you (without stating how much). a question: would you claim it would affect you anywhere NEAR as much as it would affect someone making under 75k in NYC? it's a direct question, not a rhetorical one, by the way. unless you are claiming that, AND CAN BACK IT UP, please withdraw your accusation, about me "making up facts."

again... in your shrill accusations of "distortion"

Jeez, talk about shrill. I think it?s obvious from the tone of your responses that you do take this as a personal affront. And as for the Jerry Springer, pro wrestling approach, well, saying that you could have sunk lower doesn?t change that you?ve still sunk pretty low.

Once again, I will reiterate my original point, which is that you have not presented any facts from anywhere that shows the Clinton health care plan will burden the poor.

In turning the tables and asking me for ?facts? you know very well that as the plan is simply something on paper at this point, no ?facts? about implementation and enforcement can be presented. You?re the one who began by going to ?factcheck.org? and coming back with nothing that proves your contention.

The intention of the health care plan is to protect poor and lower income people from being wiped out by health care costs. If the plan were an undue burden on poor and lower income people, that wouldn?t make sense and it wouldn?t fly.

Creating an impression that mandatory universal health care will burden the poor or lower income people is the same sort of fear mongering used by the insurance industry, drug companies and some conservatives to prevent the country from ever having such a plan and has left us with a health care system that is already hurting the poor, lower income people and even many middle income people. As Ling pointed it out, mandatory universal health care has been done in Canada and works pretty well. But this really isn?t about poor people, it?s all about ?you.?

As it is a universal social service/protection plan, comparisons with social security are appropriate. Opt outs are what the Bush administration supports for social security/social services. Most people feel that only weakens social safety nets and plans, which is why the public did not accept that approach. I agree with those who believe the same will hold true for ?universal health care.?? And the analogy is not false one.

The ?fact? you made up was that I am covered by my company, and therefore I don?t have to pay, as they will. That?s simply not true, so yes, you?re making stuff up.

Healthcare may be cheaper in Thailand, but salaries are lower. And having had to be hospitalized in a private hospital for several days, I can tell you it ain?t cheap. Consequently, I?ve had to buy my own health insurance and it?s not easy to pay for it. But it has to be done. And I don?t intend to be living in Bangkok forever, so I will have to pay for health insurance in NY. And even though I don?t live in the US at the moment, I still have to pay social security tax, and so I may have to pay a universal health care tax also. It remains to be seen. So yes, this still does affect me.

Trying to shift this to some comparison of incomes in NYC is irrelevant. I lived in NYC longer than you, never made the kind of income you?re talking about when you blithely throw around numbers, and know every bit as well as you do how hard it is to survive.

So stop playing the victim and the martyr.

With your struggling artist whining jag, once again it?s all about you, you, you. Well, sometimes you have to put the common the good ahead of your own self interests.

If a small tax for universal healthcare is such a burden to *you*, then as a freelancer, you have the option of raising your rates slightly to pay for it. I?m certain others will be doing the same if that?s the case.

And maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time filling up various websites with A4-length Jerry Springer rants at all hours for your personal entertainment, paying for health care might be less of a burden.

[CiaranM]

hussain obama for prez, that is his real first name :wink:

have u anything to support this claim ?? or r u just spewing bigoted bullshit !!

[Dave40]

As Ling pointed it out, mandatory universal health care has been done in Canada and works pretty well.

We have universal healthcare down here as well!!!

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

It works reasonally well but it's not perfect!!!!!

[afook06]

backseat quarterbacks on politics......nothing new here.....

[zeusbheld]

aside from observing that the cost of the plan will affect you (without stating how much). a question: would you claim it would affect you anywhere NEAR as much as it would affect someone making under 75k in NYC? it's a direct question, not a rhetorical one, by the way. unless you are claiming that, AND CAN BACK IT UP, please withdraw your accusation, about me "making up facts."

again... in your shrill accusations of "distortion"

Jeez, talk about shrill. I think it?s obvious from the tone of your responses that you do take this as a personal affront. And as for the Jerry Springer, pro wrestling approach, well, saying that you could have sunk lower doesn?t change that you?ve still sunk pretty low.

*yawn* no, it isn't "obvious" that i've taken it as a "personal affront." if it's obvious from the tone, then it's obvious from 99 percent of all fifteen billion posts i've made that i've taken everything as a personal affront. so either you believe i take EVERYTHING ON TF as a "personal affront" or you come off sounding pretty insincere here. neither do i believe i have "sunk pretty low," but i'd imagine you don't believe *you* have, either.

Once again, I will reiterate my original point, which is that you have not presented any facts from anywhere that shows the Clinton health care plan will burden the poor.

but i pointed out that a) it was my OPINION and IN MY OPINION making under 40k in NYC, you are likely to be too 'rich' to be subsidized yet poor enough that such a plan may hurt you. and at 20k (twice the poverty cutoff) you'd be screwed if you weren't subsidized.

In turning the tables and asking me for ?facts? you know very well that as the plan is simply something on paper at this point, no ?facts? about implementation and enforcement can be presented. You?re the one who began by going to ?factcheck.org? and coming back with nothing that proves your contention.

i didn't try to "prove" my "contention." it was an OPINION, CLEARLY SET OFF WITH "TO ME" FROM THE GET-GO. so stop trying to make it look like i painted it as a foregone, FACTUAL conclusion, while with the other hand accusing me of having "sunk pretty low."

as for factcheck.org, i merely linked to a non-partisan summary of both Obama's and Clinton's plans, as you accused me of not even being aware of what the plans actually said. i was merely pointing out that i had done some cursory research before arriving at my OPINION.

The intention of the health care plan is to protect poor and lower income people from being wiped out by health care costs. If the plan were an undue burden on poor and lower income people, that wouldn?t make sense and it wouldn?t fly.

and it is my opinion that one can be well out of the "poor and lower income" range in new york city and the plan may still be an undue burden. and for the billionth time, i did say (repeatedly) that the 'cutoff' hasn't been decided yet, and that IT IS MY OPINION.

never said it "wouldn't fly" either. just that it could put a disproportionate burden where i don't think it should go.

Creating an impression that mandatory universal health care will burden the poor or lower income people is the same sort of fear mongering used by the insurance industry, drug companies and some conservatives to prevent the country from ever having such a plan and has left us with a health care system that is already hurting the poor, lower income people and even many middle income people.

this is EXACTLY the same sort of rhetorical flourish that makes me wonder when you're going to start accusing me of standing side by side with bin Laden or was it Bush.

let me see, by expressing an OPINION that i prefer Obama's plan to Clinton''s because people in the income range where i'm likely to fall, where most of the artsy types i know in new york will fall, could likely be hit with a substantial burden many of these can't afford, i'm indulging in fear mongering? fine, call it what you want, but i fail to see how accusing me of doing the exact same thing as the insurance companies and drug companies is fair. in fact, i fail to see how it's anything but "sinking low," to use YOUR phrase.

As Ling pointed it out, mandatory universal health care has been done in Canada and works pretty well.

well then. maybe my OPINION will be proven wrong. however, it doesn't matter, as i'll still collect a hefty check from insurance companies and drug companies by preferring Obama's plan to Clinton's (nope! no distortion there!). yep i'm part of that conspiracy, and well compensated, too :roll:

But this really isn?t about poor people, it?s all about ?you.?

well then. you're sitting there on your high horse accusing ME of sinking low? a dazzling display of hypocrisy doesn't make you appear any less out of touch.

As it is a universal social service/protection plan, comparisons with social security are appropriate. Opt outs are what the Bush administration supports for social security/social services. Most people feel that only weakens social safety nets and plans, which is why the public did not accept that approach. I agree with those who believe the same will hold true for ?universal health care.?? And the analogy is not false one.

so you think it's fair to say that someone who prefers Obama's plan to Clinton's is "against universal healthcare" and to imply they'd probably support Bush's social security plan?

nope!! no distortions there!!!!

The ?fact? you made up was that I am covered by my company, and therefore I don?t have to pay, as they will. That?s simply not true, so yes, you?re making stuff up.

find where i said that. no wait, you can't. it doesn't exist, that's why. distort all you want (i might be inclined to accuse you of "making things up" but then that would be "sinking low" wouldn't it).

here is what i actually said:

sorry, you can lecture me about "supporting Bush" all you want, BUT I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY MANDATORY HEALTHCARE, AND YOU ARE NOT, DO YOU GET THAT?

what i said is misleading, as i said you would NOT be affected. that is not true, fair enough. i apologize for that, it is incorrect.

i should have said you won't be affected nearly as much, not that you won't be affected. CAN YOU PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE I SAID YOU WERE COVERED BY YOUR COMPANY? no wait, you can't because i never said it. will you admit that? probably not. will you admit to "making things up"? i doubt it. but it doesn't stop you from flinging that turd around, does it?

Healthcare may be cheaper in Thailand, but salaries are lower. And having had to be hospitalized in a private hospital for several days, I can tell you it ain?t cheap.

i'm sure it is not news to you that i live in bangkok also, and am subject to the same low pay (i'd imagine quite a bit lower than yours) and i'm also subject to paying for my own healthcare here.

seems to me by either plan, if both of us stay in BKK we'd actually BOTH be likely benefit.

Consequently, I?ve had to buy my own health insurance and it?s not easy to pay for it. But it has to be done. And I don?t intend to be living in Bangkok forever, so I will have to pay for health insurance in NY. And even though I don?t live in the US at the moment, I still have to pay social security tax, and so I may have to pay a universal health care tax also. It remains to be seen. So yes, this still does affect me.

fair enough. and it was unfair of me to say it woudln't affect you. for that, i apologize (again)

i do still doubt very much it will affect you anywhere near as much as it will affect me and a few hundred people i know. on the other hand, if you do return to new york it is quite likely that you won't be doing the same sort of work if and when you return to new york, in which case you may well fall within that 40k-75k range for a while. i concede that conceivably it could affect you just as much.

Trying to shift this to some comparison of incomes in NYC is irrelevant.

I lived in NYC longer than you, never made the kind of income you?re talking about when you blithely throw around numbers, and know every bit as well as you do how hard it is to survive.

fair enough, but i've lived in NYC more recently. when was the last time you lived there? how many decades ago? i left 2.5 years ago. and i know dozens of people in the income range i specified (40k to 75k) and quite a few in the 20k to 40k range TODAY.

So stop playing the victim and the martyr.

ah right. *i* am doing the name calling here. *i* am sinking low. GOT IT, thanks. i never should have called you "Mr. Fact. Checker," i opened a real can of worms there. you play hardball. my bad.

With your struggling artist whining jag, once again it?s all about you, you, you.

and a few hundred other people i know personally. and just about any college graduate going into the arts or any kind of freelance work whatsoever. you can paint it any way you want, if you don't feel like you've used up your supply of cheap shots but for me, it is about people LIKE me. who will quite likely be above the cutoff but ineligible for subsidies.

and again, as i said, by the time it's implemented *i* will most likely either be getting paid well again or have insurance already. but yeah, you're right its' me ruining america by being selfish.

Well, sometimes you have to put the common the good ahead of your own self interests.

fair enough, but i really don't think the choice is between the Clinton plan or no plan at all, so this is a gross distortion. keep the smear campaign coming, though. you amuse me.

If a small tax for universal healthcare is such a burden to *you*, then as a freelancer, you have the option of raising your rates slightly to pay for it. I?m certain others will be doing the same if that?s the case.

you remember those little graphs in economics class, where you increase the price and then you have fewer customers, don't you? quite likely *i* will be fine,

And maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time filling up various websites with A4-length Jerry Springer rants at all hours for your personal entertainment, paying for health care might be less of a burden.

right, now i'm lazy. which may well be true, but is still a blatant cheap shot isn't it. you're accusing me of having "sunk low" with one hand, and flinging turds with the other? classy. um.. could you experiment with applying the same standard to YOUR comments you apply to MINE? just a thought.

so what happens if (and it's looking more and more like "when") Clinton doesn't get the nomination and her plan is off the table? does the world descend into chaos or would you support the Obama plan, WHICH OTHER THAN NOT BEING MANDATORY, IS ONLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLINTON PLAN?

[zeusbheld]

backseat quarterbacks on politics......nothing new here.....

"backseat quarterbacks" is a) a mixed metaphor and what you're attempting to describe is just ... democracy. its' SUPPOSED to be messy.

[afook06]

zeus:

you're allowed your free speech and whoever is sticking a thorn up your butt about your posts.....i stay away from any politics myself.......it's always a losing battle, regardless of what you believe or don't.........and there's always someone else out there with the last words.......a no-win subject...

[Loburt]

aside from observing that the cost of the plan will affect you (without stating how much). a question: would you claim it would affect you anywhere NEAR as much as it would affect someone making under 75k in NYC? it's a direct question, not a rhetorical one, by the way. unless you are claiming that, AND CAN BACK IT UP, please withdraw your accusation, about me "making up facts."

again... in your shrill accusations of "distortion"

Jeez, talk about shrill. I think it?s obvious from the tone of your responses that you do take this as a personal affront. And as for the Jerry Springer, pro wrestling approach, well, saying that you could have sunk lower doesn?t change that you?ve still sunk pretty low.

*yawn* no, it isn't "obvious" that i've taken it as a "personal affront." if it's obvious from the tone, then it's obvious from 99 percent of all fifteen billion posts i've made that i've taken everything as a personal affront. so either you believe i take EVERYTHING ON TF as a "personal affront" or you come off sounding pretty insincere here. neither do i believe i have "sunk pretty low," but i'd imagine you don't believe *you* have, either.

Once again, I will reiterate my original point, which is that you have not presented any facts from anywhere that shows the Clinton health care plan will burden the poor.

but i pointed out that a) it was my OPINION and IN MY OPINION making under 40k in NYC, you are likely to be too 'rich' to be subsidized yet poor enough that such a plan may hurt you. and at 20k (twice the poverty cutoff) you'd be screwed if you weren't subsidized.

In turning the tables and asking me for ?facts? you know very well that as the plan is simply something on paper at this point, no ?facts? about implementation and enforcement can be presented. You?re the one who began by going to ?factcheck.org? and coming back with nothing that proves your contention.

i didn't try to "prove" my "contention." it was an OPINION, CLEARLY SET OFF WITH "TO ME" FROM THE GET-GO. so stop trying to make it look like i painted it as a foregone, FACTUAL conclusion, while with the other hand accusing me of having "sunk pretty low."

as for factcheck.org, i merely linked to a non-partisan summary of both Obama's and Clinton's plans, as you accused me of not even being aware of what the plans actually said. i was merely pointing out that i had done some cursory research before arriving at my OPINION.

The intention of the health care plan is to protect poor and lower income people from being wiped out by health care costs. If the plan were an undue burden on poor and lower income people, that wouldn?t make sense and it wouldn?t fly.

and it is my opinion that one can be well out of the "poor and lower income" range in new york city and the plan may still be an undue burden. and for the billionth time, i did say (repeatedly) that the 'cutoff' hasn't been decided yet, and that IT IS MY OPINION.

never said it "wouldn't fly" either. just that it could put a disproportionate burden where i don't think it should go.

Creating an impression that mandatory universal health care will burden the poor or lower income people is the same sort of fear mongering used by the insurance industry, drug companies and some conservatives to prevent the country from ever having such a plan and has left us with a health care system that is already hurting the poor, lower income people and even many middle income people.

this is EXACTLY the same sort of rhetorical flourish that makes me wonder when you're going to start accusing me of standing side by side with bin Laden or was it Bush.

let me see, by expressing an OPINION that i prefer Obama's plan to Clinton''s because people in the income range where i'm likely to fall, where most of the artsy types i know in new york will fall, could likely be hit with a substantial burden many of these can't afford, i'm indulging in fear mongering? fine, call it what you want, but i fail to see how accusing me of doing the exact same thing as the insurance companies and drug companies is fair. in fact, i fail to see how it's anything but "sinking low," to use YOUR phrase.

As Ling pointed it out, mandatory universal health care has been done in Canada and works pretty well.

well then. maybe my OPINION will be proven wrong. however, it doesn't matter, as i'll still collect a hefty check from insurance companies and drug companies by preferring Obama's plan to Clinton's (nope! no distortion there!). yep i'm part of that conspiracy, and well compensated, too :roll:

But this really isn?t about poor people, it?s all about ?you.?

well then. you're sitting there on your high horse accusing ME of sinking low? a dazzling display of hypocrisy doesn't make you appear any less out of touch.

As it is a universal social service/protection plan, comparisons with social security are appropriate. Opt outs are what the Bush administration supports for social security/social services. Most people feel that only weakens social safety nets and plans, which is why the public did not accept that approach. I agree with those who believe the same will hold true for ?universal health care.?? And the analogy is not false one.

so you think it's fair to say that someone who prefers Obama's plan to Clinton's is "against universal healthcare" and to imply they'd probably support Bush's social security plan?

nope!! no distortions there!!!!

The ?fact? you made up was that I am covered by my company, and therefore I don?t have to pay, as they will. That?s simply not true, so yes, you?re making stuff up.

find where i said that. no wait, you can't. it doesn't exist, that's why. distort all you want (i might be inclined to accuse you of "making things up" but then that would be "sinking low" wouldn't it).

here is what i actually said:

sorry, you can lecture me about "supporting Bush" all you want, BUT I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY MANDATORY HEALTHCARE, AND YOU ARE NOT, DO YOU GET THAT?

what i said is misleading, as i said you would NOT be affected. that is not true, fair enough. i apologize for that, it is incorrect.

i should have said you won't be affected nearly as much, not that you won't be affected. CAN YOU PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE I SAID YOU WERE COVERED BY YOUR COMPANY? no wait, you can't because i never said it. will you admit that? probably not. will you admit to "making things up"? i doubt it. but it doesn't stop you from flinging that turd around, does it?

Healthcare may be cheaper in Thailand, but salaries are lower. And having had to be hospitalized in a private hospital for several days, I can tell you it ain?t cheap.

i'm sure it is not news to you that i live in bangkok also, and am subject to the same low pay (i'd imagine quite a bit lower than yours) and i'm also subject to paying for my own healthcare here.

seems to me by either plan, if both of us stay in BKK we'd actually BOTH be likely benefit.

Consequently, I?ve had to buy my own health insurance and it?s not easy to pay for it. But it has to be done. And I don?t intend to be living in Bangkok forever, so I will have to pay for health insurance in NY. And even though I don?t live in the US at the moment, I still have to pay social security tax, and so I may have to pay a universal health care tax also. It remains to be seen. So yes, this still does affect me.

fair enough. and it was unfair of me to say it woudln't affect you. for that, i apologize (again)

i do still doubt very much it will affect you anywhere near as much as it will affect me and a few hundred people i know. on the other hand, if you do return to new york it is quite likely that you won't be doing the same sort of work if and when you return to new york, in which case you may well fall within that 40k-75k range for a while. i concede that conceivably it could affect you just as much.

Trying to shift this to some comparison of incomes in NYC is irrelevant.

I lived in NYC longer than you, never made the kind of income you?re talking about when you blithely throw around numbers, and know every bit as well as you do how hard it is to survive.

fair enough, but i've lived in NYC more recently. when was the last time you lived there? how many decades ago? i left 2.5 years ago. and i know dozens of people in the income range i specified (40k to 75k) and quite a few in the 20k to 40k range TODAY.

So stop playing the victim and the martyr.

ah right. *i* am doing the name calling here. *i* am sinking low. GOT IT, thanks. i never should have called you "Mr. Fact. Checker," i opened a real can of worms there. you play hardball. my bad.

With your struggling artist whining jag, once again it?s all about you, you, you.

and a few hundred other people i know personally. and just about any college graduate going into the arts or any kind of freelance work whatsoever. you can paint it any way you want, if you don't feel like you've used up your supply of cheap shots but for me, it is about people LIKE me. who will quite likely be above the cutoff but ineligible for subsidies.

and again, as i said, by the time it's implemented *i* will most likely either be getting paid well again or have insurance already. but yeah, you're right its' me ruining america by being selfish.

Well, sometimes you have to put the common the good ahead of your own self interests.

fair enough, but i really don't think the choice is between the Clinton plan or no plan at all, so this is a gross distortion. keep the smear campaign coming, though. you amuse me.

If a small tax for universal healthcare is such a burden to *you*, then as a freelancer, you have the option of raising your rates slightly to pay for it. I?m certain others will be doing the same if that?s the case.

you remember those little graphs in economics class, where you increase the price and then you have fewer customers, don't you? quite likely *i* will be fine,

And maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time filling up various websites with A4-length Jerry Springer rants at all hours for your personal entertainment, paying for health care might be less of a burden.

right, now i'm lazy. which may well be true, but is still a blatant cheap shot isn't it. you're accusing me of having "sunk low" with one hand, and flinging turds with the other? classy. um.. could you experiment with applying the same standard to YOUR comments you apply to MINE? just a thought.

so what happens if (and it's looking more and more like "when") Clinton doesn't get the nomination and her plan is off the table? does the world descend into chaos or would you support the Obama plan, WHICH OTHER THAN NOT BEING MANDATORY, IS ONLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLINTON PLAN?

If it takes a "blatant cheap shot" to hopefully wake you up to how much of what should be your precious time you are wasting by making an ass of yourself with reams of posts like this, so be it.

[zeusbheld]

zeus:

you're allowed your free speech and whoever is sticking a thorn up your butt about your posts.....i stay away from any politics myself.......it's always a losing battle, regardless of what you believe or don't.........and there's always someone else out there with the last words.......a no-win subject...

well i think looking at the big picture of actual politics in a democracy as opposed to internet fora that it isn't always a losing battle, but even if you win it's a compromise.

a forum like this, aside from entertainment value, can be useful as i might learn something without having to invest too much effort. if i don't learn much, it's still more fun than tv or video games.

[zeusbheld]

....

If it takes a "blatant cheap shot" to hopefully wake you up to how much of what should be your precious time you are wasting by making an ass of yourself with reams of posts like this, so be it.

i see... it's tough love on your part, not hypocrisy. thanks Dr. Phil, glad to know you've got my best interests at heart.

[CocoaBrotha]

Side note: RIP to Tim Russert who passed away few days ago.My condolances go out to his family.

[Dave40]

Politics : US Presidential Election 2008 US Presidential Race

Tuesday 4th of November, 2008

*Who will be elected US President in the 2008 Election?

Selection Odds

Barack Obama 1.14

John McCain 5.50

Election turnout*Turnout as a percentage of voting age population. (2004 = 56.69%)

Selection Odds

Under 60% 2.00

60% or over 1.72

These are the latest odds from Ladbokes the bookies are usually pretty good at predicting the outcome!!! Here comes Obama!!!!

[stegee]

hopefully whoever gets the most votes will win!! :roll: