Stossel on socialized medicine in Canada and Britain- we want that here?

[barryr]

Now I see why it seems so many in England have such bad teeth. Long lines to even see a dentist. Veterinarians do well though since see as many people as animals for medical care. Make sure you live close to a good vet. Only complete bozos want this idiocy.

ABC’s Stossel Slams Socialized Medicine, Finds Obama Expressed Interest in Single Payer System

By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
August 1, 2009 - 01:28 ET

On Friday’s 20/20 on ABC, co-anchor John Stossel exposed the flaws in the Canadian and British government-run health care systems, and even showed viewers a clip of President Obama as he once expressed a belief that single-payer health care would be an acceptable system, even while taking the position that he would not pursue it, during one of the Democratic party presidential debates in 2008. During the January 21, 2008, debate on CNN, Obama said:

It's fine for us to have a debate about how the best way to get there is, but to suggest somehow that I'm not interested in having everybody covered, or to suggest, as Hillary just did, that I was in favor of single payer, I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.

During the six-minute, 20-second segment, Stossel informed viewers of the long waits patients must endure in countries with government-run health systems – like Canada and Britain. He recounted that some patients – including world leaders and wealthy celebrities – come to America for treatment of serious conditions, and relayed the case of one Canadian woman who came to America to treat a clogged artery whose American doctor told her she would not have survived waiting a few more weeks for Canada's government health care. Additionally, Stossel found that even patients waiting in emergency rooms in Canada have to wait an average of 23hours for service.

Stossel recounted the case of a Canadian town with so many people waiting in line to be assigned to a family doctor that each month a lottery chooses four lucky residents. And in England, the shortage of dentists leads some Britons to pull their own teeth or try to repair problems on their own.

The 20/20 co-anchor summed up the importance of a profit motive for the health care industry to function adequately as he recounted that in Canada, private veterinary clinics provide health care for animals much more rapidly than the government-run system provides similar services for human patients:


JOHN STOSSEL: You want innovation and fast treatment? That often comes from people pursuing profit. And you see that in Canada because, even here, there is one area where they do offer easy access to cutting edge technology-

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -CT Scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laporoscopy-

STOSSEL: -available all the time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -24 hours, seven days a week-

STOSSEL: Patients rarely wait.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: If I see a patient that’s torn a crusciate ligament in that patient’s knee, we can generally have that patient scheduled within probably a week.

STOSSEL: But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Want a CT Scan in Canada? Private vet clinics say they can get a dog in the next day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Friday, July 31, 20/20 on ABC:

JOHN STOSSEL: Some in Congress say they’re moving closer to a plan that will make health care cheaper and better. Sounds great. But when government takes charge, it can also mean innovation stops, and you may not get the breakthroughs and care that you need to save your life.

BARACK OBAMA IN FRONT OF AUDIENCE: -affordable health care for every single American, that’s what we’re called upon to do.

STOSSEL: Care for everyone, for less money. Critics say that just isn’t possible.

SALLY PIPES, PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE: The only way they can get costs down under a government-run system is to control the amount of money that is spent on health care. But there is much more of a demand for health care than the government is willing to pay for. We will have long waits for care just like they do in Canada and in Great Britain.

STOSSEL: Those countries do have problems.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The nationwide shortage of NHS dentists-

STOSSEL: In England, people wait just to register for a dentist. Waits are so long, some people do it themselves. He used superglue. Some pull their own teeth. Dental tools – pliers and Vodka. Patients protest because the health service won’t pay for drugs they say they need. The President says he doesn’t want that.

OBAMA: -you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.

STOSSEL: But once, he did say that if he were starting from scratch-

OBAMA, FROM DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DEBATE: I would probably go with a single-payer system.

STOSSEL: He says he doesn’t want government-run health care.

PIPES: He does want government health care. He just wants to go about it in a slow way so people don’t realize what’s happening to them.

STOSSEL: Many pundits and economists agree, saying Obama’s plan will build "a bridge to government-run health care."

PIPES: -and we’re all going to face long waiting lists and have lack of access to the latest care.

DOCTOR DAVID GRATZER, AUTHOR OF THE CURE: People line up for care, some of them die, that’s what happens.

STOSSEL: Canadian Doctor David Gratzer thought Canada’s government health care was great until he started treating patients.

GRATZER; The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house-

STOSSEL: People wait in line?

GRATZER: You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem. You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem. Free as the air. You just got to wait six months.

STOSSEL: But Canadian doctors told us their system is cracking. This man had a heart attack.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE DOCTOR: What did they tell you about when an ICU bed might become available?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE PATIENT: They’re waiting for the chance that somebody may be transferred so that I can get that spot.

STOSSEL: In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but in Canada, if you’re sick enough to be admitted, you wait an average 23 hours.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE DOCTOR: You can’t send these patients to other hospitals that have capacity because there is no other hospital in the area that has capacity.

STOSSEL: There was no bed for this little girl, and she had no pediatrician that her parents could take her to to monitor her seizures. In fact, 1.7 million Canadians say they can’t get a family doctor. Some towns, like this one outside Toronto, hold a lottery. Once a month, the town clerk gets this box out of the closet. Inside are names of everyone who wants a family doctor. She pulls out four slips and then calls the lucky winners.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN ON PHONE: I just wanted to let you know that your name has been drawn for Dr. Keel’s patient list. Oh, you’re quite welcome.

STOSSEL: Others in town must wait. Businessman Rick Baker makes money from Canadian rationing. People stuck on waiting lists like Shirley Healy pay him to get them to America for treatment. Healy had a blocked artery that kept her from digesting her food.

RICK BAKER, CANADIAN BUSINESSMAN: She was starving to death. She’d lost 50 pounds.

STOSSEL: She hired Rick to help her get to this hospital in Washington state where she saw an American doctor.

HEALY: The doctor said that I would have had only a very few weeks to live.

STOSSEL: Yet the Canadian government calls her surgery elective.

HEALY: The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live.

STOSSEL: When this Canadian woman was about to give birth to quadruplets, she was told, "Sorry, all the neonatal units are too crowded." She had to fly to Montana.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE ANCHOR: Actress Natasha Richardson is said to be in critical condition-

STOSSEL: After Natasha Richardson fell while skiing in Montreal, she needed a high-tech trauma center but there wasn’t one within hundreds of miles. And there were no med evac helicopters to take her to one.

STOSSEL: So, yes, our profit-driven system is expensive and sometimes wasteful. But it’s that pursuit of profit that’s given us inventions that save lives.

GRATZER: This is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment.

STOSSEL: Thousands come here from countries with government health care. When this Spanish tenor got cancer, he came to America. So did this sheikh from the United Arab Emirates, Italy’s prime minister, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

GRATER: Literally, we’re surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You got to pay a price for that type of advancement.

STOSSEL: Breakthroughs like birth control pills and robotic limbs wouldn’t have happened without the possibility of big profit, says Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute.

GRACE MARIE TURNER, GALEN INSTITUTE: I want companies to come up with cures for Parkinson’s, cures for cancer, cures for Alzheimer’s. And unless there is a reward for them to do that, we’re not going to have those new medicines.

STOSSEL: Well, government has researchers. We have the NIH.

TURNER: Government is responsible for four percent of the drugs on the market today.

STOSSEL: She’s right. You want innovation and fast treatment? That often comes from people pursuing profit. And you see that in Canada because, even here, there is one area where they do offer easy access to cutting edge technology-

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -CT Scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laporoscopy-

STOSSEL: -available all the time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: -24 hours, seven days a week-

STOSSEL: Patients rarely wait.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VETERINARIAN: If I see a patient that’s torn a crusciate ligament in that patient’s knee, we can generally have that patient scheduled within probably a week.

STOSSEL: But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Want a CT Scan in Canada? Private vet clinics say they can get a dog in the next day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/08/01/abc-s-stossel-slams-socialized-medicine-finds-obama-expressed-interes

[TexanBob]

I feel sorry for all the Canadians who won't be able to get quality care in America once ObamaCare forces them into the same long lines to get care here.

My physician has already told me that if/when America adopts this, he plans to retire. He'll be forced to go through all the same costs, all the same paperwork, all the same directives and some bureaucrat will be telling him how much he'll be paid and when he might expect a check in the mail. Plus, he'll still be forced to have massive malpractice insurance because the ambulance chasers who line the pockets of the Democrat Party are not going to see their business curtailed at all.

Why would any doctor want to practice under such a system if he had an alternative?

My supervisor has a daughter is who marrying a French physician. Get this! He's not allowed to practice medicine in France outside the government-run system and he can't earn a living that way so he spends his weekends driving to Italy and seeing patients on a cash-only basis in order to make ends meet.

That's the sort of socialist plan the Democrats want to bring here. We will have doctor shortages and the best doctors will flee to somewhere else. There are already countries hoping to cash in on setting up medical centers for American patients fleeing Obama's health care system.

[tnedator]

I know this will get torn apart by many on this board, but this is very similar to what I have heard from co-workers and friends in Europe. Some places are better than others, like Germany seeming to have much better dental care than England, but the root problems are the same.

Last year, I was talking with a German dermatologist who had just finished her residency and I asked her if she was going to work for the German version of NHS (national health service) and she said no. She said as a government doctor, she would be lucky to get a few minutes per patient. Even though it was going to be hard, because like in England, people are just starting to choose private insurance INSTEAD of free nationalized medicine, she was going to start a fee for service practice so that she would have time to actually treat her patients right.

[Rohirrim]

Not only that, but those goddamn socialists are going to euthanize granny.

[tnedator]

Not only that, but those goddamn socialists are going to euthanize granny.

If LABS was around WPR and saw a conservative post that he would be screaming, "Strawman, strawman, straaaaaawwwwwmmmaaaaannn!!!"

Do you have anything to actually add in regard to the serious issues Stossel's report raises, or just want to continue being a partisan hack, that deflects truth with BS? Just curious?

[Rohirrim]

If LABS was around WPR and saw a conservative post that he would be screaming, "Strawman, strawman, straaaaaawwwwwmmmaaaaannn!!!"

Do you have anything to actually add in regard to the serious issues Stossel's report raises, or just want to continue being a partisan hack, that deflects truth with BS? Just curious?

If you don't think Stossel has an axe to grind you are so naive you should have a big "N" tattooed to your forehead. Stossel is a hard core libertarian dogmatist.

Munch on this, cupcake:

http://media.gallup.com/GPTB/healthcare/20030325_1.gif

In all three countries, there is great variation of opinion within the population on both the quality of medical care and the availability of affordable healthcare. It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

I actually feel sorry for you guys. The health care insurance industry and big pharma are spending over two million dollars a day to make sure you think the way you think. Kind of sad.

[tnedator]

I actually feel sorry for you guys. The health care insurance industry and big pharma are spending over two million dollars a day to make sure you think the way you think. Kind of sad.

How many people from Europe have YOU spoken to about their health care system?

[Rohirrim]

Here's a nice "data and fact based analysis" if you would like to leave the hyperbole of Stossel, the insurance industry, and the Rightard Fear machine and actually venture out into the reality based world.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/are_patients_in_universal_heal.php

In fact, aside from Canada, we were least likely to be able to get an appointment on the same day, and most places could provide access to a doctor in an ER faster than in the US. So is access really worse in universal systems? It would appear that in most universal systems, doctors in clinics and the ER are more available than in the US.

Of course, if you find ideological dogma more alluring than the truth, nobody can help you.

[Rohirrim]

How many people from Europe have YOU spoken to about their health care system?

Well, here's one Brit's take:
A lot of us British people have been bewildered by the attacks on the NHS from right-wing Americans given that we are a healthier nation than you are, live longer, and pay less money for the privilege in spite of having generally higher costs of living than you do in the States.

Having said that, as SLC points out, there's no guarantee that switching to a more modern system would work in your country.

For me, the thing that bewilders me about U.S. politics, is why you're not out on the streets marching - both parties - over the ridiculous amounts of money your government spends for so little benefit. Any reconstruction of the U.S. health system needs to begin with the simple question: "Where the **** is all that money going." Unless you can answer that and stop the rot, you'll have the same problems regardless of having universal health care or not.

[tnedator]

Well, here's one Brit's take:
A lot of us British people have been bewildered by the attacks on the NHS from right-wing Americans given that we are a healthier nation than you are, live longer, and pay less money for the privilege in spite of having generally higher costs of living than you do in the States.

Having said that, as SLC points out, there's no guarantee that switching to a more modern system would work in your country.

For me, the thing that bewilders me about U.S. politics, is why you're not out on the streets marching - both parties - over the ridiculous amounts of money your government spends for so little benefit. Any reconstruction of the U.S. health system needs to begin with the simple question: "Where the **** is all that money going." Unless you can answer that and stop the rot, you'll have the same problems regardless of having universal health care or not.

I'm sorry, I missed the answer to my question in your above quote.

[Rohirrim]

What every American should be asking themselves:

Why is the Right turning everything, including the health care debate, into an ideological fight? What does political ideology have to do with fixing health care?

[tnedator]

What every American should be asking themselves:

Why is the Right turning everything, including the health care debate, into an ideological fight? What does political ideology have to do with fixing health care?

And in true leftish fashion, spin, spin, spin. Answer a simple question? Not a chance. Throw up a smoke screen of spin? Yep.

[Rohirrim]

I'm sorry, I missed the answer to my question in your above quote.

Sure, I've talked to plenty of Europeans about health care. Half my family is still in Ireland. You're trying to make a point where there is none. Read the article I posted. As it states, anecdotes and data are not the same thing. For every person you dig up who says they don't like their health care I'll dig up one who says they do. Anecdotes are like statistics; They can be made to say anything. Read the data.

[Rohirrim]

And in true leftish fashion, spin, spin, spin. Answer a simple question? Not a chance. Throw up a smoke screen of spin? Yep.


All you are doing is protecting your ignorance and ideological partisanship. Discuss the facts.

[TexanBob]

Ask the Cubans how satisfied they are with their health care. I'm sure 98% are very satisfied. Or else.

Satisfaction isn't a proper barometer when comparing systems because, if all you know is one system, you'll be satisfied with insufficient care because you've been told that's all there is. Maybe they feed you Michael Moore propaganda to make you think your socialist health care is peachy keen.

Imagine a lottery in U.S. where once a week you get to find out whether you are ***allowed*** to see the doctor!! And wait until these fascists decide that you are too obese or too old or smoke too much, etc, to be given treatment.

There is one elemental truth at play here. You can't have universal coverage unless you reduce costs and the only way to reduce costs is to deny care. Period. You can show me all the charts and graphs you want, but it won't matter. The Democrats are lying through their teeth about what they plan to do with this because they know you won't like it when it is actually put in place but, once they seize control of 1/6th of our economy, you won't have any other choice but to go along with it.

And you'll be satisfied with it. Or else.

[tnedator]

All you are doing is protecting your ignorance and ideological partisanship. Discuss the facts.

Discuss the facts? Like this crack was discussing the facts?

Not only that, but those goddamn socialists are going to euthanize granny.

[Rohirrim]

Ask the Cubans how satisfied they are with their health care. I'm sure 98% are very satisfied. Or else.

Satisfaction isn't a proper barometer when comparing systems because, if all you know is one system, you'll be satisfied with insufficient care because you've been told that's all there is. Maybe they feed you Michael Moore propaganda to make you think your socialist health care is peachy keen.

Imagine a lottery in U.S. where once a week you get to find out whether you are ***allowed*** to see the doctor!! And wait until these fascists decide that you are too obese or too old or smoke too much, etc, to be given treatment.

There is one elemental truth at play here. You can't have universal coverage unless you reduce costs and the only way to reduce costs is to deny care. Period. You can show me all the charts and graphs you want, but it won't matter. The Democrats are lying through their teeth about what they plan to do with this because they know you won't like it when it is actually put in place but, once they seize control of 1/6th of our economy, you won't have any other choice but to go along with it.

And you'll be satisfied with it. Or else.

Oh, and Cuba, France, Britain and Canada are all the same. Are you really that completely out of it? Read my thread on French health care. It's a wake up call.

[Rohirrim]

Discuss the facts? Like this crack was discussing the facts?

You'll have to ask your party about that one. I can't take credit for their fear mongering. If that's something you want to fall for, be my guest.

[TexanBob]

What every American should be asking themselves:

Why is the Right turning everything, including the health care debate, into an ideological fight? What does political ideology have to do with fixing health care?

My god, you communists are shameless. You spent the last eight years turning every ****ing thing into politics, including supporting our troops in a time of war, and you have the NERVE to ask such a question?

You can have CommieCare all over the ****ing world but that's not enough for you. Leave your communist hands off my body and my health care!

[Rohirrim]

My god, you communists are shameless. You spent the last eight years turning every ****ing thing into politics, including supporting our troops in a time of war, and you have the NERVE to ask such a question?

You can have CommieCare all over the ****ing world but that's not enough for you. Leave your communist hands off my body and my health care!

You're a ****ing moron. But at least you live in Texas where you belong. :~ohyah!:

[tnedator]

You'll have to ask your party about that one. I can't take credit for their fear mongering. If that's something you want to fall for, be my guest.

When our President, from your party, rushes through a stimulus bill to prevent economic armagedden (and breaks his promise of transparency, posting critical bills on the web before voting, etc.), says that if we don't reform healthcare, the economy won't recover, etc., it isn't fear mongering?

It's funny that when one side does it it is fear mongering, but when the other side does it, well, it's just ok.

[Rohirrim]

When our President, from your party, rushes through a stimulus bill to prevent economic armagedden (and breaks his promise of transparency, posting critical bills on the web before voting, etc.), says that if we don't reform healthcare, the economy won't recover, etc., it isn't fear mongering?

It's funny that when one side does it it is fear mongering, but when the other side does it, well, it's just ok.

Strange. Wasn't Obama just continuing Bush's stimulus efforts? Oh, and BTW, if health care continues to climb at 20% per year (like it's been doing) it will sink this economy, especially small businesses that are already stretched to the breaking point by health care costs.

[tnedator]

Strange. Wasn't Obama just continuing Bush's stimulus efforts? Oh, and BTW, if health care continues to climb at 20% per year (like it's been doing) it will sink this economy, especially small businesses that are already stretched to the breaking point by health care costs.

No, because the stimulus bill rushed through under the gang of three, wasn't about stimulus. It was rushed through under the 'guise' of Stimulus. Anyway, same old same old with trying to have discussions with you libs on here.

[Spider]

LOL at the bedwetters ........ Notice how Italy and France are by passed ......
and you bedwetters wonder why you are the butt of so many jokes .......
How can you tell if a Bedwetters ( aka a Right wing person ) is lying ?
His lips start moving when he speaks .........

[Rohirrim]

No, because the stimulus bill rushed through under the gang of three, wasn't about stimulus. It was rushed through under the 'guise' of Stimulus. Anyway, same old same old with trying to have discussions with you libs on here.

Yep, those facts are a pain in the ass when all you want to do is squeal about your ideological dogma and parrot the rightard talking points. :yayaya:

[tnedator]

Yep, those facts are a pain in the ass when all you want to do is squeal about your ideological dogma and parrot the rightard talking points. :yayaya:

Vs. you guys parroting the liberal talking points? ???

What's funny is that the polls on this site show a fair % (likely over half) didn't vote for the liberals, but like with the MSM, you guys do a marvelous job of keeping them from posting their opinions due to your attack dog posting styles.

[Rohirrim]

Vs. you guys parroting the liberal talking points? ???

What's funny is that the polls on this site show a fair % (likely over half) didn't vote for the liberals, but like with the MSM, you guys do a marvelous job of keeping them from posting their opinions due to your attack dog posting styles.

I'll discuss anything with anybody. But, if you call me a commie, a socialist or any of a various ****load of other names I've been called on this board, or question my patriotism (I'm a U.S. Army Infantry vet), or try to sell me a bill of goods, I'll come right back at ya.

Face it, the hard data do not support the Right Wing talking points on health care. The health care industry (insurance, big pharma, AMA) are spending millions PER DAY to maintain the status quo. The are making billions on the system we've got, and our system consistently ranks out as the most expensive and one of the worst in the world. It's a giant boondoggle. As long as they can keep it on an ideological plain and keep Americans fighting each other, then they keep raking in that money.

[tnedator]

I'll discuss anything with anybody. But, if you call me a commie, a socialist or any of a various ****load of other names I've been called on this board, or question my patriotism (I'm a U.S. Army Infantry vet), or try to sell me a bill of goods, I'll come right back at ya.


It's seems that you and Spider are the ones that came in and started calling people names and made it not about the facts, but about the ideology.

Why do you guys fear honest debate so much, and feel you have to turn it into personal attacks, which you know will shut up many of the people that disagree with you, but don't want to get into flame wars?

[frerottenextelway]

....says that if we don't reform healthcare, the economy won't recover, etc., it isn't fear mongering?

Seems more like common sense than anything else, at least mid to long term.

Are you saying that statement is not true?

[Spider]

It's seems that you and Spider are the ones that came in and started calling people names and made it not about the facts, but about the ideology.

Why do you guys fear honest debate so much, and feel you have to turn it into personal attacks, which you know will shut up many of the people that disagree with you, but don't want to get into flame wars?

I wont speak for Roh , but I will speak for myself ....... you cant have an honest debate with a **** head , none of that facts back you up , you will never see me post anything from the daily Kos , huffington , etc ...........
I dont go to them sites ,I go off my own experiences ,real life experiences as a blue collar family man trying to support his family , and so far all I have seen from the right is bull **** , I have seen policies canceled or rates go way up to where a person cant afford them when they are sick ...... This is how I know when you are full of **** .......... 50 thousand dollar doctor bill for a broken leg and no surgery involved ...............And I have little to no tolerance for someone who doesnt know what they are talking about defending this bull-**** .............

[frerottenextelway]

It's seems that you and Spider are the ones that came in and started calling people names and made it not about the facts, but about the ideology.

Why do you guys fear honest debate so much, and feel you have to turn it into personal attacks, which you know will shut up many of the people that disagree with you, but don't want to get into flame wars?

I know I wasn't mentioned, but I'll gladly go into substance (http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2485112&highlight=substance#post2485112)on anything. The thing is, (and I don't say this to be an ass) but it doesn't seem to me the people posting from the Right here are intellectually capable of talking substance.

[orinjkrush]

we have a ton of smart people out of work.

we have a ton of a need for doctors and dentists.

and the problem is?

The AMA and the ADA.

[tnedator]

I know I wasn't mentioned, but I'll gladly go into substance (http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2485112&highlight=substance#post2485112)on anything. The thing is, (and I don't say this to be an ass) but it doesn't seem to me the people posting from the Right here are intellectually capable of talking substance.

Maybe if some of you guys on the left would be willing to talk and debate without attacking, calling people ****tards, bedwetters, etc, etc, etc, you might find that there are plenty of people on the right willing to honestly debate the merits of issues. However, since you guys resort to mob-like attacks on everyone that doesn't bow to Obama and the rest of the left, or crucify the GOP, most reasoned people on the right side of issues simply choose not to post.

[Spider]

Maybe if some of you guys on the left would be willing to talk and debate without attacking, calling people ****tards, bedwetters, etc, etc, etc, you might find that there are plenty of people on the right willing to honestly debate the merits of issues. However, since you guys resort to mob-like attacks on everyone that doesn't bow to Obama and the rest of the left, or crucify the GOP, most reasoned people on the right side of issues simply choose not to post.

Dont think of bedwetters as an attack , think of it as a description ........

[frerottenextelway]

Maybe if some of you guys on the left would be willing to talk and debate without attacking, calling people ****tards, bedwetters, etc, etc, etc, you might find that there are plenty of people on the right willing to honestly debate the merits of issues. However, since you guys resort to mob-like attacks on everyone that doesn't bow to Obama and the rest of the left, or crucify the GOP, most reasoned people on the right side of issues simply choose not to post.

Maybe. I doubt it. I have yet to see what I consider a substance filled post from the Right in here.

I'll lay down the challenge. You name the topic (as long as I agree to it, some things I don't feel like debating) and we'll start a pure substance only debate thread between just us. Whoever is mod will delete all other postings that aren't from us in it (as long as we can find a mod to agree to this).

Accept?

[tnedator]

Dont think of bedwetters as an attack , think of it as a description ........

Every few months I think, "surely they've changed, people like Spider will be ready to discuss things without acting like a 12 year old." Nope.

Don't think of "your a dick" as an attack, just a description.

[Spider]

Every few months I think, "surely they've changed, people like Spider will be ready to discuss things without acting like a 12 year old." Nope.

Don't think of "your a dick" as an attack, just a description.

LOL you have known me how long ? and what in our past of talking politics made you think this ?
Yeah I am a dick , when it comes to my money , and **** heads wanting to make idiotic policies ......... I dont mind taxes , but i do mind 50k dr bill for a broke leg ...........

[tnedator]

LOL you have known me how long ? and what in our past of talking politics made you think this ?
Yeah I am a dick , when it comes to my money , and **** heads wanting to make idiotic policies ......... I dont mind taxes , but i do mind 50k dr bill for a broke leg ...........

Because I believe most people are inherently good and not assholes, and therefore I keep thinking you will not contnue to trash that belief.

As to 50k health bills, I agree completely, I just want to make sure the cure isn't worse than the symptoms.

[tnedator]

Maybe. I doubt it. I have yet to see what I consider a substance filled post from the Right in here.

I'll lay down the challenge. You name the topic (as long as I agree to it, some things I don't feel like debating) and we'll start a pure substance only debate thread between just us. Whoever is mod will delete all other postings that aren't from us in it (as long as we can find a mod to agree to this).

Accept?

I'll think about it. My experience here is that what you describe is not possible in the public forums.

[frerottenextelway]

I'll think about it. My experience here is that what you describe is not possible in the public forums.

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work (I think it would tho, I have ideas on how to make it work). So what?

Seems like you're scared of a little debate tho. I guess it's better to back away now than come out a fool in the end, if I may say.

[Spider]

Because I believe most people are inherently good and not a-holes, and therefore I keep thinking you will not contnue to trash that belief. and then we go frolicking through the clover together .........
This is my country , I dont tread lightly ........you support policies that **** it up , yeah I will say something , just like the ****stick @ the petro in Amarillo Tx, when he said his guns keep him free , I said you are an Idiot , A hunting rifle or any kind of gun you own will not stop Marines , or a tank , or a F16 fighter jet , or an invading army with these things , your taxes that pay for our military keep us free .....

As to 50k health bills, I agree completely, I just want to make sure the cure isn't worse than the symptoms.

Meh ........... All you guys do is bring up Canada , as the end all ..........

[tnedator]

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work (I think it would tho, I have ideas on how to make it work). So what?

Seems like you're scared of a little debate tho. I guess it's better to back away now than come out a fool in the end, if I may say.

What's the end game of this little exercise? I believe all I'm doing is opening myself up to attacks from the likes of Spider and others, but no biggie.

How about this new executive pay bill? Should the government be passing laws that can dictate to businesses what they can pay employees? It's not a subject that I have read/thought much about until the last day or so, but it seems like a good topic.

[Spider]

What's the end game of this little exercise? I believe all I'm doing is opening myself up to attacks from the likes of Spider and others, but no biggie. LOL what a brave trooper
.........Seriously if you really believe the bull**** you say , it wouldnt matter what I would say .............Do you think for a second I worry about what other people might say to one of my opinions ?

[tnedator]

Meh ........... All you guys do is bring up Canada , as the end all ..........

Actually, I'm more likely to bring up Europe and government inefficiencies than Canada. My nephew relies on Medicaid, I rely on private insurance. He has a much harder time getting treatment than I do.

When we bring up capping malpractice, we hear it is only a tiny fraction of the medical costs, but even the President has stated numerous times that doctors practice defensive medicine, running five tests rather than one, to make sure they cover their ass. Yet, he will do nothing about the root cause of why they are running 5 tests.

Is it the 'only' part of the problem? No, but it is part of the problem. However, all we hear is that transitioning from where we are to a single payer system will solve all the problems. Yes, slogans like "IRS compassion and post office efficiancy" is a little over the top when describing government health care, but democratic senators and congressmen are saying that these first bills are just a transition to a single payer system, they are touting that fact in their town hall meetings.

Anyway, as I have freely admitted, I don't have all the answers, but I also don't see the 'answer' in the bills congress was trying to rush through.

[tnedator]

LOL what a brave trooper
.........Seriously if you really believe the bull**** you say , it wouldnt matter what I would say .............Do you think for a second I worry about what other people might say to one of my opinions ?

So, I guess that's your way of saying you will honor frerottenextelway's wishes and stay out of the thread he proposes?

[frerottenextelway]

What's the end game of this little exercise? I believe all I'm doing is opening myself up to attacks from the likes of Spider and others, but no biggie.


Well, the basic set-up I think would go somthing like this:

- create 2 threads, one for debate, one for any convo on the debate.

- at the top of the debate thread we have a notice not to post in it, w/ a link to the convo thread

- any other postings get either a.) deleted or b.) moved by a mod to the convo thread

- we agree to ignore all other postings in the debate thread

This would limit your worries about the debate thread. You can (or not) join in the convo thread at your own choosing if the likes of Spider or whoever jump in.

How about this new executive pay bill? Should the government be passing laws that can dictate to businesses what they can pay employees? It's not a subject that I have read/thought much about until the last day or so, but it seems like a good topic.

Well, that's ok. My only objection is my position doesn't perfectly match that of the Obama admin. My overall position is I believe companies that have taken tax payer money should be subject to the Gov't rules on CEO and employee pay, but other companies should not (which slightly differs from Obama).

I will do this, and argue that position, but I'd rather subject matter where I'm more aligned with Obama.

EDIT: The end game I guess would be when we start going in circles. We'll recognize this, and can move on to another topic or leave it as is.

DOUBLE EDIT: I'm up for any alternatives on the end game. Such as a set number of posts/replies, perhaps w/ a closing argument. Whatever, I'm open-minded on this.

[Spider]

Actually, I'm more likely to bring up Europe and government inefficiencies than Canada. My nephew relies on Medicaid, I rely on private insurance. He has a much harder time getting treatment than I do.

When we bring up capping malpractice, we hear it is only a tiny fraction of the medical costs, but even the President has stated numerous times that doctors practice defensive medicine, running five tests rather than one, to make sure they cover their ass. Yet, he will do nothing about the root cause of why they are running 5 tests.

Is it the 'only' part of the problem? No, but it is part of the problem. However, all we hear is that transitioning from where we are to a single payer system will solve all the problems. Yes, slogans like "IRS compassion and post office efficiancy" is a little over the top when describing government health care, but democratic senators and congressmen are saying that these first bills are just a transition to a single payer system, they are touting that fact in their town hall meetings.

Anyway, as I have freely admitted, I don't have all the answers, but I also don't see the 'answer' in the bills congress was trying to rush through.

My sister ( married to a POS bedwetter) relys on Medicade , she has no problems , My insurance dropped me like a prom date that didnt put out over the triplets ...... We could adopt frances system , or italys ..... They both work and work well .........
we already have free healthcare ( well free to some ) here and people like me flip the bill , I want some of that action .........

[Spider]

So, I guess that's your way of saying you will honor frerottenextelway's wishes and stay out of the thread he proposes?

Just leave me out of it , I made one comment in this thread , called rightwingers bedwetters , nothing new , planned on moving on , I have a funny story about a Kansas state trooper , a rest area and a vending machine......But I got side tracked here ............

[frerottenextelway]

Just leave me out of it , I made one comment in this thread , called rightwingers bedwetters , nothing new , planned on moving on , I have a funny story about a Kansas state trooper , a rest area and a vending machine......But I got side tracked here ............

I know. If I asked you to stay out of 1 thread so there can be a heads-up debate, I'm sure you will. But tned needs an excuse to back out*!


















*My sad attempt to talk him into it.

[tnedator]

Well, the basic set-up I think would go somthing like this:

- create 2 threads, one for debate, one for any convo on the debate.

- at the top of the debate thread we have a notice not to post in it, w/ a link to the convo thread

- any other postings get either a.) deleted or b.) moved by a mod to the convo thread

- we agree to ignore all other postings in the debate thread

This would limit your worries about the debate thread. You can (or not) join in the convo thread at your own choosing if the likes of Spider or whoever jump in.



Well, that's ok. My only objection is my position doesn't perfectly match that of the Obama admin. My overall position is I believe companies that have taken tax payer money should be subject to the Gov't rules on CEO and employee pay, but other companies should not (which slightly differs from Obama).

I will do this, and argue that position, but I'd rather subject matter where I'm more aligned with Obama.

EDIT: The end game I guess would be when we start going in circles. We'll recognize this, and can move on to another topic or leave it as is.

DOUBLE EDIT: I'm up for any alternatives on the end game. Such as a set number of posts/replies, perhaps w/ a closing argument. Whatever, I'm open-minded on this.

Well, you and I 'almost' see eye-to-eye on that issue, so I can understand you not wanting to discuss it. IMO, setting conditions of CEO/Exec compensation prior to giving a company TARP funds is fine, because then a company would have a 'choice'.

Setting the subject aside, I don't see a need for a convo thread. Either it is possible to have a civilized debate, or it isn't. It shouldn't be necessary to have one thread where convo (partisan attacks, name calling, etc) is ok, and one where we are to ignore it.

If you think it is possible to have a civilized debate in WPR, I'm up for it. I can't say I will 'win' the debate, I might even be swayed by your arguments, that's the point of having an open minded discussion. However, if you have so much confidence in the ability to have a real, honest discussion on a topic in WPR, I don't think you need to give a second thread as an outlet for people to treat each other like ****. Just my opinion.

[frerottenextelway]

Well, you and I 'almost' see eye-to-eye on that issue, so I can understand you not wanting to discuss it. IMO, setting conditions of CEO/Exec compensation prior to giving a company TARP funds is fine, because then a company would have a 'choice'.

Well, my only disagreement w/ that would be on ''prior'', since I think companies essentially owned by the U.S. gov't should be subject to the gov't pay laws, even if they weren't enacted prior. But that's nuance stuff, and I think we can have a better debate on a subject where we take differing philosphical view points than just one small point of nuance.


Setting the subject aside, I don't see a need for a convo thread. Either it is possible to have a civilized debate, or it isn't. It shouldn't be necessary to have one thread where convo (partisan attacks, name calling, etc) is ok, and one where we are to ignore it.

Well, the purpose of a seperate thread is to keep the head-up debate thread just a head-up debate thread. To keep it pure substance between two people debating a subject on its merits. The convo thread can contain whatever. If someone wants to jump in w/ substance, they can there. It's whatever.


If you think it is possible to have a civilized debate in WPR, I'm up for it. I can't say I will 'win' the debate, I might even be swayed by your arguments, that's the point of having an open minded discussion. However, if you have so much confidence in the ability to have a real, honest discussion on a topic in WPR, I don't think you need to give a second thread as an outlet for people to treat each other like ****. Just my opinion.

I honestly had no plans on posting in the second thread. The purpose was to help keep the main thread between just the two of us.

If it's an issue between this happening or not, perhaps we don't create one and I can ask Taco for temp mod status for the sole reason of deleting any posts in the debate thread not written by you or me. Or if not me, perhaps someone else can take that role.

Or whatever. I'm open-minded here, just trying to come up with a format that works so this can happen. I'm confident on the issues substance wise. My nerd innerself thinks this would be fun.

[tnedator]

Well, my only disagreement w/ that would be on ''prior'', since I think companies essentially owned by the U.S. gov't should be subject to the gov't pay laws, even if they weren't enacted prior. But that's nuance stuff, and I think we can have a better debate on a subject where we take differing philosphical view points than just one small point of nuance.



Well, the purpose of a seperate thread is to keep the head-up debate thread just a head-up debate thread. To keep it pure substance between two people debating a subject on its merits. The convo thread can contain whatever. If someone wants to jump in w/ substance, they can there. It's whatever.



I honestly had no plans on posting in the second thread. The purpose was to help keep the main thread between just the two of us.

If it's an issue between this happening or not, perhaps we don't create one and I can ask Taco for temp mod status for the sole reason of deleting any posts in the debate thread not written by you or me. Or if not me, perhaps someone else can take that role.

Or whatever. I'm open-minded here, just trying to come up with a format that works so this can happen. I'm confident on the issues substance wise. My nerd innerself thinks this would be fun.

I'm even willing to have the discussions via PM. However, I don't like providing the 'mental crutch' to allow people to be asshats (I think that's a term I have seen thrown around here) in another thread, because they can't behave in the main thread.

What sort of started this suggestion of yours was my contention that a vocal minority of liberals cannot debate in a civil manner. I know there are some righties that fire right back, but I believe more people stay out of debates than participate, because of the small number of people that are over the top in their attacks of anyone they disagree with.

For instance, I put up a poll last week, which was essentially an OM Obama approval rating poll. By a small majority, most people claimed to not have voted for Obama. Unlike most polls here, I made it a private poll, because I know in a public poll, many people wouldn't vote, for fear of being attacked. Some people like to mix it up, flame and attack others and be flamed and attacked in return, some don't. Clearly on OM, most of the people that like to flame and attack others are liberal, and it is also apparent that many of the conservatives simply would rather stick to football than deal with having to trade insults with members in order to discuss politics.

So, that mini rant out of the way, the only thing I am really interested in is whether it is possible to have a 'real' discussion on a topic, that doesn't degrade into name calling and attacks within a very short period of time.

So, my challenge to you would be to prove that the liberals (who make up most of the attacks) on this board can honestly and openly discuss a topic, without trying to overwhelm posters with attacks and tangents. Obviously, I would hope that the righties would also follow the lead of the libs and leave the attacks outside of the thread, but who knows.

Personally, I don't think the majority of people that pariticipate in WPR are capable of having a discussion that doesn't include attacks and insults, whether aimed at other posters, or the politicians that might be part of the subject being discussed.

[frerottenextelway]

I'm even willing to have the discussions via PM. However, I don't like providing the 'mental crutch' to allow people to be asshats (I think that's a term I have seen thrown around here) in another thread, because they can't behave in the main thread.

What sort of started this suggestion of yours was my contention that a vocal minority of liberals cannot debate in a civil manner. I know there are some righties that fire right back, but I believe more people stay out of debates than participate, because of the small number of people that are over the top in their attacks of anyone they disagree with.

For instance, I put up a poll last week, which was essentially an OM Obama approval rating poll. By a small majority, most people claimed to not have voted for Obama. Unlike most polls here, I made it a private poll, because I know in a public poll, many people wouldn't vote, for fear of being attacked. Some people like to mix it up, flame and attack others and be flamed and attacked in return, some don't. Clearly on OM, most of the people that like to flame and attack others are liberal, and it is also apparent that many of the conservatives simply would rather stick to football than deal with having to trade insults with members in order to discuss politics.

So, that mini rant out of the way, the only thing I am really interested in is whether it is possible to have a 'real' discussion on a topic, that doesn't degrade into name calling and attacks within a very short period of time.

So, my challenge to you would be to prove that the liberals (who make up most of the attacks) on this board can honestly and openly discuss a topic, without trying to overwhelm posters with attacks and tangents. Obviously, I would hope that the righties would also follow the lead of the libs and leave the attacks outside of the thread, but who knows.

Personally, I don't think the majority of people that pariticipate in WPR are capable of having a discussion that doesn't include attacks and insults, whether aimed at other posters, or the politicians that might be part of the subject being discussed.

Just so we can make this clear...

Will you debate me head-up on substance so everyone can see or not?

That is my bottom line challenge to you. If no, just say no plainly so I can move on.

Also, I disagree w/ your point about Liberals here being behind most of the attacks. Nearly every post by BarryR, Smiling Assassin, etc is an attack or insult post. But I really don't care. I have no desire to count the number of attacks. I can debate substance, and that's all that I control.

ALSO, I'm leaving for the night. So this is my last post for now.

[tnedator]

Just so we can make this clear...

Will you debate me head-up on substance so everyone can see or not?

That is my bottom line challenge to you. If no, just say no plainly so I can move on.

Also, I disagree w/ your point about Liberals here being behind most of the attacks. Nearly every post by BarryR, Smiling Assassin, etc is an attack or insult post. But I really don't care. I have no desire to count the number of attacks. I can debate substance, and that's all that I control.

ALSO, I'm leaving for the night. So this is my last post for now.

Yes, I am willing to debate you publicly, but I just don't get into name calling and attacks, just seems plain childish to me.

So, if you can create a thread with ground rules that people agree to and adhere to, then I'm in. If it goes downhill like most WPR threads, then I'm out.

I get pissed at myself when I get sucked into the childish name calling, which is why I disappear from WPR for months at a time and only come back for a day or so, then disappear again.

[barryr]

Just so we can make this clear...

Will you debate me head-up on substance so everyone can see or not?

That is my bottom line challenge to you. If no, just say no plainly so I can move on.

Also, I disagree w/ your point about Liberals here being behind most of the attacks. Nearly every post by BarryR, Smiling Assassin, etc is an attack or insult post. But I really don't care. I have no desire to count the number of attacks. I can debate substance, and that's all that I control.

ALSO, I'm leaving for the night. So this is my last post for now.

If you'd pay attention, you'd see you and others like you dismiss responses they don't like with personal remarks and insults and even start threads doing so in titles. That's not people interested in any kind of debate. This has been the trend in here for a couple years I have noticed. You don't mind or see it since you happen to agree with most of their takes and only notice attack posts when directed at them. The ratio is not even close.