Troublemane Explains the Folly of the HEALTHCARE BILL

[Falvlun]

Your friend did not die for lack of insurance, he died from a blood clot. There is a cause and effect thing going on here I don't think you are grasping.

He probably would not have died if he could have afforded an MRI in a timely manner. That's the only cause and effect not being understood here.

 

[linwood]

DEATHPANELS are a good thing.

I had quite a bit of sympathy for your rant until this point.

 

[Falvlun]

I had quite a bit of sympathy for your rant until this point.

You mean comparing cars to healthcare didn't throw you off from the get go?

 

[Troublemane]

Well Dudes its been fun! But Im going to watch LOST,...And Drive MAH CAR!!! VROOM VROOM!!! :frubalz: :angel2:

 

[Walkntune]

Wouldn't you think if the Govy was really into caring about healthcare then they would establish laws that made healthy eating more affordable than the nasty box foods that sit on shelves and the fast food industry. Why do so many turn a blind eye to the truth? It is about taking care health isn't it?
Or is it?(more like a deceptive way to bring in socialism under a bill that seems humanitarian)
And remember, the bill being disguised under a false humanitarian bill is just a foot in the door to all socialistic ideas the Govy would like to force on citizens so maybe the issue with cars is not to far fetched?
After all once they control healthcare then they have to deal with issues that effect healthcare and so on.

 

[xkatz]

The only reason why the vast majority (minus some religious dissidents) doesn't have insurance is because they have decided they cannot afford it.

So it is a person's decision to have an expensive and sometimes impractical healthcare system?

 

[Mister_T]

Its a shame. And I feel for your loss, but do me a favor and don't blame me for your cousin's death.

Do me a favor and show me where I blamed you at all? Or do you have another red herring up your sleeve some wheres?

You don't think he would have just avoided buying insurance anyway? If he didn't have it, I would bet he just figured he was young and didn't need it. If he had been told by Mother Government he needed it, chances are he probably would have tried to go without it anyway.

Well since apparently you seem to know more about my cousin than I do, you'd know that he had bought into insurance as a cable tech prior to opening his own business, because he knew how important it was to have it, but had to do without it starting out on his own business. If "Mother Government" was around to give him insurance, I'm guessing there's a pretty good chance he would still be around.

But I didn't accuse him of lying, I said you were lying about people dying for lack of insurance.

He's the one who died due to lack of insurance Troublemane, not me. As I have so factually demonstrated, this is an unfortunate truth that you apparently don't care to acknowledge. The only person that appears to be lying is you, and it's to yourself, unfortunately.

Here's a list of more "liars" Troublemane. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you about how they're lying too:

Names of the Dead

Your friend did not die for lack of insurance, he died from a blood clot. There is a cause and effect thing going on here I don't think you are grasping.

Right just like 9/11 victims didn't die because of terrorists, they died because of explosive jet fuel and collapsing buildings! How can anyone miss such and obvious detail. :areyoucra Anything else you'd care to try and spin?

There is a cause and effect thing going on here that someone is not grasping, and that someone is you: That blood clot could have been easily treated and easily cured, Troublemane. Nobody wanted to touch my cousin because he did not have insurance and he was denied treatment over and over for 2 consecutive weeks before someone clinic called him about getting an MRI done; not because he didn't want to get treated, not because he didn't try to get treated, because he did not have any insurance.

 

[Troublemane]

Do me a favor and show me where I blamed you at all? Or do you have another red herring up your sleeve some wheres?

your attitude is that insurance would have saved your cousins life, and if only dim wits like me would support universal healthcare, then your cousin would not have died needlessly. thus, you are blaming me for his death. Not directly, but still implied by your insinuation that I should feel guilty about calling you out on your "playing loose" with facts and logic, in light of your cousin's death.

Well since apparently you seem to know more about my cousin than I do, you'd know that he had bought into insurance as a cable tech prior to opening his own business, because he knew how important it was to have it, but had to do without it starting out on his own business. If "Mother Government" was around to give him insurance, I'm guessing there's a pretty good chance he would still be around.

that's just a guess. Not a guarantee. you cannot say with a certainty he would be alive if he had had insurance. Maybe if he had decided to move to England, that would have saved his life! but you can't live your life on maybes, nor can you convince me he would have lived if he would have had insurance.

it cannot be demonstrated, so it is not factually true. it is a belief, nothing more.

But as I have so factually demonstrated, I'm not lying at all. Mind explaining to me how I am lying here? The only person that appears to be lying is you, and it's to yourself, unfortunately.

how am I lying? I am saying you cannot prove your cousin would be still alive had he only had health insurance. you are saying he could, and that is your proof? No go, not convincing.

Here's a list of more "liars" Troublemane. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you about how they're lying too:

Names of the Dead

Right just like 9/11 victims didn't die because of terrorists, they died because of explosive jet fuel and collapsing buildings! How can anyone miss such and obvious detail. :areyoucra Anything else you'd care to try and spin?

The 9-11 terrorists caused the planes to crash, therefore you are equating the doctors who refused to treat your cousin with the 9-11 terrorists. Brilliant! Why didn't I see the connection, it is so obvious!...gimme a break, dude. You are seriously reaching here.

There is absolutely no connection, logical or otherwise, between the 9-11 terrorists and the doctors who refused treatment for your cousin.

Why not bring them up on charges? Why not say we make a law which says that doctors must treat anyone for any reason whatsoever, and if they die, then sue them into the dirt. Sounds like a great idea!

There is a cause and effect thing going on here that someone is not grasping, and that someone is you: That blood clot could have been easily treated and easily cured, Troublemane. Nobody wanted to touch my cousin because he did not have insurance and he was denied treatment over and over for 2 consecutive weeks before someone clinic called him about getting an MRI done; not because he didn't want to get treated, not because he didn't try to get treated, because he did not have any insurance.

So why aren't the doctors being thrown in jail? I mean if they killed him, by denying him treatment that would have saved his life, clearly they were murderers, and should be prosecuted.

Seriously, you have the more difficult fight here, dude, in proving a negative. It's like trying to prove that if Hitler had been assassinated prior to WWII, then war would not have broken out. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT??? You cannot prove it, so when you try and use it as back up for your argument you are not being factual. You are simply playing loose with the facts to advance a political ideology.

 

[Mister_T]

I'm curious Troublemane, if a house is on fire and a family is stuck inside, and the fire department did not put the fire out because the family did not have "fireman's insurance" and instead directed the family to local "fireman's clinic" that would be able to help them the next day, and everyone in that house burned alive, would you blame the family inside the house?

The purpose of healthcare, is to treat and save lives from health related ailments or injuries; it is not a car dealership like you are so fallaciously equating it to.

 

[Buttercup]

Troublemane, Perhaps you could explain your criticism of the health care bill in plain English? If you've stated your opinion about the bill in another thread, I haven't read it. What's got your panties in a bunch about this legislation?

 

[linwood]

You mean comparing cars to healthcare didn't throw you off from the get go?

I said I had sympathy.
I didn`t say I was buying it hook line and sinker.

 

[Mister_T]

your attitude is that insurance would have saved your cousins life, and if only dim wits like me would support universal healthcare, then your cousin would not have died needlessly. thus, you are blaming me for his death. Not directly, but still implied by your insinuation that I should feel guilty about calling you out on your "playing loose" with facts and logic, in light of your cousin's death.

Once again Troublemane, please direct me to the exact post where I blamed you for my cousin's death. It's ok, I'll sit here and wait for you to show me.

Playing loose with facts and logic? That's rich. You accused people of lying about people dying due to lack of healthcare, I provided a rebuttal which apparently you can't refute or accept, so now you're resort to playing the victim card of me "blaming" you for my cousins death and accusing me of faulty logic and facts? You're right Troublemane, I guess reality has a liberal bias. :sarcastic

that's just a guess. Not a guarantee. you cannot say with a certainty he would be alive if he had had insurance. Maybe if he had decided to move to England, that would have saved his life! but you can't live your life on maybes, nor can you convince me he would have lived if he would have had insurance.

it cannot be demonstrated, so it is not factually true. it is a belief, nothing more.

You're right, I can't guarantee anything. I also can't guarantee that if I go to work and my office catches on fire and traps me inside, that I'll be saved by the fire department. But it's pretty safe bet that if the fire department shows up to put out the fire and tries to save me from the burning building, that my chance of survival would increase dramatically. I know, I think crazy like that.....thinking on "maybes." :cover:

how am I lying? I am saying you cannot prove your cousin would be still alive had he only had health insurance. you are saying he could, and that is your proof? No go, not convincing.

You're accusing me of "lying" remember? When actually you're lying to yourself: Are you trying to say that my cousin would have still been denied an MRI had he had the insurance? The sole reason he was getting told why he was being denied (repeatedly) in the first place?

Don't kill the messenger, Troublemane. It's not my fault you're not convinced, I've done my part. If you can't refute that without spinning it in some way, that's your problem.

The 9-11 terrorists caused the planes to crash, therefore you are equating the doctors who refused to treat your cousin with the 9-11 terrorists. Brilliant! Why didn't I see the connection, it is so obvious!...gimme a break, dude. You are seriously reaching here.

There is absolutely no connection, logical or otherwise, between the 9-11 terrorists and the doctors who refused treatment for your cousin.

Why not bring them up on charges? Why not say we make a law which says that doctors must treat anyone for any reason whatsoever, and if they die, then sue them into the dirt. Sounds like a great idea!

No connection logical or otherwise? You mean like equating buying cars to having healthcare? Or that a person seeking healthcare treatment/exam for any possible blood clots and died because he was repeatedly refused, is the blood clot's fault and not the industry that repeatedly denied him care? Absolutely!

Connecting 9/11 terrorists to doctors who refuse healthcare, Troublemane? No, that's not what I said....at all. Read it again, and this time carefully: You obviously missed the hyperbole, who's purpose was to show how ridiculous your own "reaching" in this thread is such as equating cars to healthcare and saying that "Your friend did not die for lack of insurance, he died from a blood clot". :areyoucra

So why aren't the doctors being thrown in jail? I mean if they killed him, by denying him treatment that would have saved his life, clearly they were murderers, and should be prosecuted.

Seriously, you have the more difficult fight here, dude, in proving a negative. It's like trying to prove that if Hitler had been assassinated prior to WWII, then war would not have broken out. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT??? You cannot prove it, so when you try and use it as back up for your argument you are not being factual. You are simply playing loose with the facts to advance a political ideology.

First off, I didn't say they were murders, Troublemane. Stop taking me out of context and putting stuff in my mouth that I did not say. If you can't play fair, then don't play at all. I'm not going to sit here and keep defending imaginary hysterics that you keep conjuring up.

Secondly, I've already answered this previously. I'll post it again to ensure that you don't miss it:

You're right, I can't guarantee anything. I also can't guarantee that if I go to work and my office catches on fire and traps me inside, that I'll be saved by the fire department. But it's pretty safe bet that if the fire department shows up to put out the fire and tries to save me from the burning building, that my chance of survival would increase dramatically. I know, I think crazy like that.....thinking on "maybes." :cover:

Are you trying to say that my cousin would have still been denied an MRI had he had the insurance? The sole reason he was getting told why he was being denied (repeatedly) in the first place?

I've proved my "negative" quite well with facts that I've personally witnessed. Now are you going to do so and prove me otherwise, or are you continue to dance around it with hysterics?

 

[Smoke]

I'm curious Troublemane, if a house is on fire and a family is stuck inside, and the fire department did not put the fire out because the family did not have "fireman's insurance" and instead directed the family to local "fireman's clinic" that would be able to help them the next day, and everyone in that house burned alive, would you blame the family inside the house?

If I can play Troublemane for a moment, you can't prove that the family wouldn't have all dropped dead that very night even without the fire.

 

[Mister_T]

Are you trying to say that my cousin would have still been denied an MRI had he had the insurance? The sole reason he was getting told why he was being denied (repeatedly) in the first place?

Let me explain this again Troublemane, maybe I'm not being clear here and if not, I apologize:

My cousin twisted his knee dancing on a Saturday; The following Monday and almost everyday after following that Saturday he twisted his knee up until his death, he searched for an MRI for 2 weeks consecutively, and was consecutively denied due to lack of insurance until he finally got an MRI scheduled for the following Tuesday; He died Friday, 5 days before his scheduled MRI. The time between my cousin twisting his knee and his scheduled MRI was 18 days.

Are you saying that if my cousin had gotten an MRI that first week and a follow-up the following week, that the chances they would have caught that blood clot in time and saved his life would not have increased dramatically? Do you think having such life saving check ups is really a "privilege" like having a car?

 

[Troublemane]

Ok then, please explain to me then how having someone else pay for his insurance would have saved his life?

Are you saying it is right to force someone to pay for another person's insurance? No matter what the cost?

 

[Falvlun]

So it is a person's decision to have an expensive and sometimes impractical healthcare system?

We might have missed the turn at Albuquerque.

People largely decide not to have health insurance, not necessarily because they don't want it or need it, but because they can't afford it. That's all I was saying.

 

[Troublemane]

BTW, for those wondering,..the Thread Title is misspelled, but not on purpose....

I was in a hurry to get the thread voted through, and I had to make a few backroom deals. It's not the original thread title I had wanted, but I just wanted to get something through, figuring I could always change it later. OOPS! Sorry!

 

[Buttercup]

Ok then, please explain to me then how having someone else pay for his insurance would have saved his life?

I guess you shouldn't go to the public library then since I helped pay for the books. :areyoucra

Are you saying it is right to force someone to pay for another person's insurance? No matter what the cost?

Also, don't drive over the Ferry Street bridge when you come to visit me because taxpayers put that bridge in place. In fact, I'm hoping you'll walk on a dirt road to get here because the taxes I contribute help pay for the roads to my house. I could go on and on but is it really necessary?

 

[Troublemane]

I guess you shouldn't go to the public library then since I helped pay for the books. :areyoucra

Also, don't drive over the Ferry Street bridge when you come to visit me because taxpayers put that bridge in place. In fact, I'm hoping you'll walk on a dirt road to get here because the taxes I contribute help pay for the roads to my house. I could go on and on but is it really necessary?

I see, the whole argument of "If you don't appreciate socialism, then you shouldn't enjoy a police department or roads, or public services of any kind". Not an unusual argument, but just as easily flawed.

public libraries are free to anyone, no matter if you are a taxpayer or not. Police and fire services are free to anyone, whether you are a taxpayer or not. They are paid out of the local taxes, with some subsidies from state and federal govt.

But government run healthcare programs are NOT free to everyone. They are what are known as "ENTITLEMENT" programs. You can only get them if you qualify. Now, what this means is, even if you are rich, you cannot get these nifty government healthcare insurance programs. WHY NOT?

Because the rich are second class citizens in this debate. Even though they are supposedly the ones who are going to be paying for it. Do you see how totally hypocritical that is?

 

[Buttercup]

public libraries are free to anyone, no matter if you are a taxpayer or not. Police and fire services are free to anyone, whether you are a taxpayer or not. They are paid out of the local taxes, with some subsidies from state and federal govt.

Who pays for these services though? They aren't free. Didn't your mama ever tell you that NOTHING is free? It's true.

But government run healthcare programs are NOT free to everyone. They are what are known as "ENTITLEMENT" programs. You can only get them if you qualify. Now, what this means is, even if you are rich, you cannot get these nifty government healthcare insurance programs. WHY NOT?

Why should health care be free?