Union pulls support for Obamacare, a sign of things to come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

I disagree. The President does not have the power, and thus, does not have the responsibility, to control the economy. We do not want him to either.

---

It was a baited question. Since we can act like Bush was to blame for his 8 years, why cant Obama be responsible for his?

Thanks for ruining my trap :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

It was a baited question. Since we can act like Bush was to blame for his 8 years, why cant Obama be responsible for his?

Thanks for ruining my trap :P

---

Sorry, just being honest and objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I kinda laugh when you start talking about scientific research and peer reviews, yet when i spent 4 pages on sound economic science and charts and motives you dismissed it all because its not your opinion.

---

I don't remember dismissing anything that wasnt facts, don't remember stating an opinion either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Koch Industries is one of many small donators to Fraser, and liberals even say it is a tiny amount:
Sunshine Listing the Fraser Institute | Ottawa Citizen

You want to dismiss a factual report on the Canadian healthcare system from the top Canadian think tank due to them taking a donation from a business that you don't like, and you think you are educated? LOL

---

Might need some new bearings. I can hear you backpedaling from here. LMAO.

Like I said, I haven't dismissed it, I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research. That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Might need some new bearings. I can hear you backpedaling from here. LMAO.

Like I said, I haven't dismissed it, I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research. That's all.

---

Not backpedalling here. That is how I found that Koch was even a donator. They have given 500K to them, which is small compared to their almost $11 million in annual revenue.

Fraser Institute is the highest rated think tank in Canada - and they are considered mainstream in the US, UK, and Canada. They are the only Canadian organization in the Top 30 leading think-tanks in the world in 2011, out of a global group of 6,545 think-tanks. What other think tank's opinion would mean more to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Not backpedalling here. That is how I found that Koch was even a donator. They have given 500K to them, which is small compared to their almost $11 million in annual revenue.

---

The donation amount is inconsequential. Koch Industries is in fact a donor and a lobbyist and they aren't "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination

Quote:

---

Fraser Institute is the highest rated think tank in Canada - and they are considered mainstream in the US, UK, and Canada. They are the only Canadian organization in the Top 30 leading think-tanks in the world in 2011, out of a global group of 6,545 think-tanks. What other think tank's opinion would mean more to you?

---

I don't want an opinion at all. I want a fact. And I certainly don't want an opinion financed by lobbyists.

Only think progress.com will do I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Only think progress.com will do I guess.

---

Get it from wherever you want, I could care less. I didn't even attack the daily caller so I don't even understand why you brought up TP. But don't try to pretend a report, that supports an overtly conservative idea, financed by a very conservative lobbyist, is liberal. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe something like that. You guys are smarter than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

The donation amount is inconsequential. Koch Industries is in fact a donor and a lobbyist and they aren't "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination

I don't want an opinion at all. I want a fact. And I certainly don't want an opinion financed by lobbyists.

---

Total provincial health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 7.5%
over the last ten years, compared to only 5.7% for total available provincial
revenue (including federal transfers) and only 5.2% for GDP.

• Across Canada, government spending on health has grown faster (8.1%
annually) on average than GDP (6.7% annually) since 1975. Government
health expenditures accounted for 8.4% of GDP in 2009 compared to only
5.4% of GDP in 1975.

• As of 2011, provincial health spending in Ontario and Quebec currently
consumes more than 50% of total revenues.

• Projections of the most recent ten-year trend show that in Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick government health spending
is on pace to consume 50% of revenues by 2017. In Manitoba and Prince
Edward Island, health spending will reach 50% of total available revenues
by 2028.

• Excluding federal transfers, health spending currently consumes 87.7%
of total available provincial own-source revenue in Nova Scotia, 74.2% in
New Brunswick, 71.9% in Quebec, 65.5% in Prince Edward Island, 63.1% in
Ontario, 62.8% in Manitoba, 60.3% in Newfoundland & Labrador, 55.2% in
Saskatchewan, 54.6% in British Columbia, and 48.0% in Alberta.

• Provincial governments have increased taxes to fund health care. In 2004,
Ontario introduced an income surtax, which the province mislabeled
a “health premium.” In 2010, the province of Quebec introduced a new
health tax called the “health contribution.” Like Ontario’s “health premium,”
Quebec’s “health contribution” is not linked to individual consumption of
medical goods and services; it is in fact an income surtax and will therefore
have no impact on costs because there is no incentive effect on the consumption
choices of health care users.

• Federal transfers have been generous over the period. Between 1997/98 and
2006/07, the federal government provided the provinces with an estimated
$115.7 billion in cash transfers for health care—$36.0 billion more than needed
to keep up with population growth and inflation over the same period.

How's that for facts? Try to deny them, and try to claim that you are "educated and intellectual".

Fraser Institute has Nobel laureates on it's editorial advisory board composed completely of professors and doctors, are you are Nobel lauraete? T
he Fraser Institute accepts no government funding and no private contracts for research. The
donations they receive are unrestricted and come only from private foundations,
organizations, or individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Get it from wherever you want, I could care less. I didn't even attack the daily caller so I don't even understand why you brought up TP. But don't try to pretend a report, that supports an overtly conservative idea, financed by a very conservative lobbyist, is liberal. I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics it takes to believe something like that. You guys are smarter than that.

---

Everything is conservative in regards to your very liberal position - that's the problem. You think that your extreme left-wing liberals are the middle.

Like I said previously, name another think tank that is higher ranked or more relevant to assessing the Canadian government managed healthcare system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Total provincial health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 7.5%
over the last ten years, compared to only 5.7% for total available provincial
revenue (including federal transfers) and only 5.2% for GDP.

• Across Canada, government spending on health has grown faster (8.1%
annually) on average than GDP (6.7% annually) since 1975. Government
health expenditures accounted for 8.4% of GDP in 2009 compared to only
5.4% of GDP in 1975.

• As of 2011, provincial health spending in Ontario and Quebec currently
consumes more than 50% of total revenues.

• Projections of the most recent ten-year trend show that in Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick government health spending
is on pace to consume 50% of revenues by 2017. In Manitoba and Prince
Edward Island, health spending will reach 50% of total available revenues
by 2028.

• Excluding federal transfers, health spending currently consumes 87.7%
of total available provincial own-source revenue in Nova Scotia, 74.2% in
New Brunswick, 71.9% in Quebec, 65.5% in Prince Edward Island, 63.1% in
Ontario, 62.8% in Manitoba, 60.3% in Newfoundland & Labrador, 55.2% in
Saskatchewan, 54.6% in British Columbia, and 48.0% in Alberta.

• Provincial governments have increased taxes to fund health care. In 2004,
Ontario introduced an income surtax, which the province mislabeled
a “health premium.” In 2010, the province of Quebec introduced a new
health tax called the “health contribution.” Like Ontario’s “health premium,”
Quebec’s “health contribution” is not linked to individual consumption of
medical goods and services; it is in fact an income surtax and will therefore
have no impact on costs because there is no incentive effect on the consumption
choices of health care users.

• Federal transfers have been generous over the period. Between 1997/98 and
2006/07, the federal government provided the provinces with an estimated
$115.7 billion in cash transfers for health care—$36.0 billion more than needed
to keep up with population growth and inflation over the same period.

---

Why? What's the cause?

Quote:

---

How's that for facts? Try to deny them, and try to claim that you are "educated and intellectual".

---

You can quit the ad hominems now. It's become REALLY tired. There's a clear difference between the dismission of facts and the criticism of them. You're smarter than that, Id hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Everything is conservative in regards to your very liberal position - that's the problem. You think that your extreme left-wing liberals are the middle.

---

My very liberal position? You think universal healthcare is a liberal position? Do you know what "extreme left wing" means? Do you know the definition of "liberal" and conservative?

Yes. With respect to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Brietbart/Fox News "Obamas a socialist Marxist communist Muslim gun grabber" conspiracy BS brand of conservatism, I'm very left of that. I don't want anything to do with that. But that's not conservatism, nor is that rooted fiscal responsibility or even reality. That's the reason why you hear so little from actual conservatives because that shit gives conservatives a bad name

Quote:

---

Like I said previously, name another think tank that is higher ranked or more relevant to assessing the Canadian government managed healthcare system.

---

I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Why? What's the cause?

You can quit the ad hominems now. It's become REALLY tired. There's a clear difference between the dismission of facts and the criticism of them. You're smarter than that, Id hope.

---

You asked for a fact, I gave you several of them. If you had bothered to actually open the report that you are critical of, you would already know the answers to your questions. Obviously, you did not, and are dismissing the report without any knowledge of the data, methodology, authors, references, etc. - all very open and public.

I am simply asking you questions, which is your own method for answering questions. Perhaps you should consider learning to actually look for your own answers, and how to use comprehension when you read.

So, answer the question, are you more educated that the authors or the editorial advisory board? Are you wiser than their Nobel laureates?

The end result is that you are unable to refute these facts, or the Fraser Institutes findings, and you choose to simply dismiss them as they do not fit with your own beliefs. Your own beliefs rely only on the talking points that you see on TV and the internet, and are not based upon a specific dataset and published methodology, as the Fraser Institute's report was.

What's funny is how you criticize Sinfix for believing right-wing media like Fox, when you do the same thing with the left-wing media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

My very liberal position? You think universal healthcare is a liberal position? Do you know what "extreme left wing" means? Do you know the definition of "liberal" and conservative?

Yes. With respect to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Brietbart/Fox News "Obamas a socialist Marxist communist Muslim gun grabber" conspiracy BS brand of conservatism, I'm very left of that. I don't want anything to do with that. But that's not conservatism, nor is that rooted fiscal responsibility or even reality. That's the reason why you hear so little from actual conservatives because that shit gives conservatives a bad name

I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

---

You're a liberal in your political positioning on the issues. We've seen that. You can deny it, but it's clear to everyone else. That's your prerogative though, and fine with me, just as its fine with me that Sinfix is conservative.

Like I said, name a think tank that is better qualified and that you would listen to the results from. Don't try to get out if it by saying "I don't care", as you clearly do care when you won't trust the top think tank in Canada, who actually publishes the data and the methodology utilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You asked for a fact, I gave you several of them. If you had bothered to actually open the report that you are critical of, you would already know the answers to your questions. Obviously, you did not, and are dismissing the report without any knowledge of the data, methodology, authors, references, etc. - all very open and public.

---

I see what you quoted. Once again, I haven't even attempted to dismiss the report yet. Next.

Quote:

---

So, answer the question, are you more educated that the authors or the editorial advisory board? Are you wiser than their Nobel laureates?

---

What does me being more or less wise have to do with anything? Another ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Fallacy after fallacy.

Quote:

---

The end result is that you are unable to refute these facts, or the Fraser Institutes findings, and you choose to simply dismiss them as they do not fit with your own beliefs. Your own beliefs rely only on the talking points that you see on TV and the internet, and are not based upon a specific dataset and published methodology, as the Fraser Institute's report was.

---

Haven't tried to refute them at all. You don't know what refuting means. Haven't interjected my beliefs at all either. Dont even watch TV. Next.

Quote:

---

What's funny is how you criticize Sinfix for believing right-wing media like Fox, when you do the same thing with the left-wing media.

---

I call out "left wing media" when it missteps. Trust me. Doesn't seem to be a big factor here in this echo chamber though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You're a liberal in your political positioning on the issues. We've seen that. You can deny it, but it's clear to everyone else. That's your prerogative though, and fine with me, just as its fine with me that Sinfix is conservative.

---

Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.

Quote:

---

Like I said, name a think tank that is better qualified and that you would listen to the results from. Don't try to get out if it by saying "I don't care", as you clearly do care when you won't trust the top think tank in Canada, who actually publishes the data and the methodology utilized.

---

Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I don't care where you get the facts from. Don't misrepresent them and try to pretend they say something they don't say. Period.

---

LOL i about fell off my chair when I read this. If it isnt what you think is true, you dont believe it. Thats why i said its futile to even argue anymore because no matter what anyone says, you have some snarky comeback and you try to change the subject or deflect. its a good tactic honestly.

I mean you tried to sit here and argue against sound pure economic theory, thats taught in colleges all around America and say I was wrong and you were right, despite every economist and entity saying youre wrong. So then David posts a reputable study and you say "LOL"

Im also willing to submit that almost any think tank/study group has some sort of money tied to some political group. It just happens. Funding comes from places, and those places probably have political connections, doesnt mean the data collected is wrong.

Come on, use your "critical thinking" skills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.

Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

---

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.

I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP), then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I see what you quoted. Once again, I haven't even attempted to dismiss the report yet. Next.

---

When I mentioned Koch Industries, you didn't say that was all that you needed to see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

What does me being more or less wise have to do with anything? Another ad hominem and an appeal to authority. Fallacy after fallacy.

---

You have referred to education and intellect many times. Now, when I show you a group of people who all have a lot more education and have been recognized globally for their intellect, suddenly that no longer matters, as they do not come to the same conclusions as you do, even though they have all of the data, and you do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Haven't tried to refute them at all. You don't know what refuting means. Haven't interjected my beliefs at all either. Dont even watch TV. Next.

---

No, you don't refute, you just dismiss based on two words - Koch Industries.
You certainly couldn't dismiss it on facts, so what else is there that you could base your dismissal on besides your own personal opinion/belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I call out "left wing media" when it missteps. Trust me. Doesn't seem to be a big factor here in this echo chamber though.

---

Where was this "calling out the left wing media"? I must have missed that one.
Trust you? Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Some. Conservative on others. Haven't made voiced many positions of mine, and you havent really demonstrated your knowledge of what "conservative" and what "liberal" is, so its tough for you to accurately make that call. Sinfix is not a conservative, he only echo's the opinion of the things he sees in the media that fit his preconceived notions. He rarely reports an opinion of his own, and when he does, its often very libertarian. Your idea of a left-right paradigm does not exist in reality.

---

So, you are determining what is difficult for me now? Let me make this clear to you. We have seen your positions on political discussions, the point that you attempt to argue, your pseudo-intellect, and your attempts to be arrogant. In reality, you do not know what I believe, nor anyone else. You can "trust me" on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Not trying to get out of anything. I don't care where the truth comes from as long as its the truth and not someone's version of it. I don't care if the Koch brothers donated a dollar or a billion. If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers.

---

Are you really this dumb? And you think that you are educated and intelligent? The data came from outside the Fraser Institute - directly from the Canadian government. The methodology was clearly defined and followed to reach a logical and rational conclusion by educated authors. It was reviewed by highly regarded professors, and published globally. Where is this other "set of accurate numbers" that you speak of supposed to come from?
And - where is the answer to the question that I asked you - what think tank will you recognize? Quit ducking the original question - if you don't have an answer, just concede that this time, you have no choice but to accept that the Fraser Institute's assessment is the best current published conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.

I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP), then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.

---

But where do you stand on "shotgun weddings" of gay couples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

But where do you stand on "shotgun weddings" of gay couples?

---

You love who you love.............................................. .......git him dun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Someone as deep into the Obama regime and their thinking, you are also equally not qualified to distinguish right from left.

---

Hmmmm.....dunno bout all that.

Quote:

---

I am probably the most middle in this forum(as evidence by my stance on gay marriage and gun control where i differ from the GOP)

---

Also evidenced by your stance on the absolute free market...and your stance on benghazi.

Quote:

---

then David, you and Sinfix are polar opposites. Hes very very rightwing/Libertarian (libertarian has roots in extreme right wing ) and you are very progressive and left.

---

I would hardly consider Sinfix a polar opposite, and I would hardly consider myself very left with as many conservative opinions I hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

When I mentioned Koch Industries, you didn't say that was all that you needed to see?

---

I did say that

Quote:

---

You have referred to education and intellect many times. Now, when I show you a group of people who all have a lot more education and have been recognized globally for their intellect, suddenly that no longer matters, as they do not come to the same conclusions as you do, even though they have all of the data, and you do not.

---

Except that I haven't come to a conclusion, except the conclusion that I'd like more info to make a conclusion. My qualifications wouldn't make me or them any less wrong or right. Period.

Quote:

---

No, you don't refute, you just dismiss based on two words - Koch Industries.
You certainly couldn't dismiss it on facts, so what else is there that you could base your dismissal on besides your own personal opinion/belief?

---

I dismissed your claim that Koch was liberal. It is in fact not at all. That was all Ive dismissed so far.

Quote:

---

Where was this "calling out the left wing media"? I must have missed that one.
Trust you? Why?

---

Because no one posts any "left wing media" for me to call out for being wrong/misleading

Quote:

---

So, you are determining what is difficult for me now? Let me make this clear to you. We have seen your positions on political discussions, the point that you attempt to argue, your pseudo-intellect, and your attempts to be arrogant. In reality, you do not know what I believe, nor anyone else. You can "trust me" on that.

---

Yes. I am saying based on the little amount of opinions I've given, you can't accurately make a hasty generalization.

Quote:

---

Are you really this dumb? And you think that you are educated and intelligent? The data came from outside the Fraser Institute - directly from the Canadian government. The methodology was clearly defined and followed to reach a logical and rational conclusion by educated authors. It was reviewed by highly regarded professors, and published globally.

---

Still havent said otherwise. Strawman and another ad hominem. Tough for you to make your case without a logical fallacy huh?

Quote:

---

Where is this other "set of accurate numbers" that you speak of supposed to come from?
And - where is the answer to the question that I asked you - what think tank will you recognize? Quit ducking the original question - if you don't have an answer, just concede that this time, you have no choice but to accept that the Fraser Institute's assessment is the best current published conclusion.

---

I've given an answer a million times, I recognize this ones facts. Do I need to say it again? I recognize this ones facts. Ask me again which one I recognize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Hmmmm.....dunno bout all that.

Also evidenced by your stance on the absolute free market...and your stance on benghazi.

I would hardly consider Sinfix a polar opposite, and I would hardly consider myself very left with as many conservative opinions I hold.

---

What are you conservative on. Lets see if you know what conservative really means

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I did say that

Except that I haven't come to a conclusion, except the conclusion that I'd like more info to make a conclusion. My qualifications wouldn't make me or them any less wrong or right. Period.

I dismissed your claim that Koch was liberal. It is in fact not at all. That was all Ive dismissed so far.

---

You dismissed the report as soon as I mentioned Koch Industries. Re-read your post.
"And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada."
"Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO"
Pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Because no one posts any "left wing media" for me to call out for being wrong/misleading

---

Sinfix does all the time. You just happen to agree with it, because you BELIEVE that it is right and not wrong/misleading.
Thanks for confirming your liberal position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Yes. I am saying based on the little amount of opinions I've given, you can't accurately make a hasty generalization.

---

You can't be so dumb to think that you haven't shown your positions on issues.
And you believe that you know what others can/cannot do, and what is easy and difficult for them through reading posts on an internet forum? This from a person who has shown that he has reading comprehension problems? It's laughable if it wasn't so tragic that you believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Still havent said otherwise. Strawman and another ad hominem. Tough for you to make your case without a logical fallacy huh?

---

You don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. I made statements of fact that you ignored. Your belief that you are an intellectual is the only fallacy here - and that is contained solely in your own mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I've given an answer a million times, I recognize this ones facts. Do I need to say it again? I recognize this ones facts. Ask me again which one I recognize.

---

You never gave the answer to the question that I posed - because you had not answer to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

What are you conservative on. Lets see if you know what conservative really means

---

This should be fun. We get to see what you guys think conservative actually means.

I'll start with socioeconomic safety nets

Free markets

Public option healthcare

Universal healthcare

Balanced budgets

Limited government

And a strong military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You dismissed the report as soon as I mentioned Koch Industries. Re-read your post.
"And I'm gonna need more than a conservative think tank report on universal healthcare in Canada."
"Thats pretty much all I needed to know right there. This isn't a biased study at all. LMAO"
Pretty clear.

---

Pretty clear that it reiterates my position that I wanted more info to make a conclusion that universal healthcare isn't working for Canada. Thanks for quoting me so I can clarify that for you.

Quote:

---

Sinfix does all the time. You just happen to agree with it, because you BELIEVE that it is right and not wrong/misleading.
Thanks for confirming your liberal position.

---

When was the last time Sinfix posted anything "liberal" that was wrong or misleading that I didn't clarify for him?

Quote:

---

You don't seem to understand what a strawman argument is. I made statements of fact that you ignored. Your belief that you are an intellectual is the only fallacy here - and that is contained solely in your own mind.

---

Yes. Arguing a position that doesn't exist. You're fluent at it.

Quote:

---

You never gave the answer to the question that I posed - because you had not answer to give.

---

Sorry. Take your blinders off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

This should be fun. We get to see what you guys think conservative actually means.

I'll start with socioeconomic safety nets

Free markets

Public option healthcare

Universal healthcare

Balanced budgets

Limited government

And a strong military.

---

So you just posted a bunch of terms. You didnt actually post your opinion on them.

I am going to completely refute EVERYTHING you have said about the Frazier study.

If you are saying universal healthcare and public option healthcare are conservative ideas, you got that from a conservative think tank. How are you going to stand by the findings of that think tank, then completely ignore the findings of another? BTW, Koch has also spent a large sum at the Heritage Foundation. Obviously that means the data is slanted and cannot be trusted, just like you say about the Frazier study.

Lets be real though, they are not conservative ideas at all. A true conservative wants as little govt intrusion in everyday lives as possible.

One more thing. If you believe in free markets, you cannot possibly believe in govt option or universal healthcare. Both of those are designed to artificially manipulate the markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Pretty clear that it reiterates my position that I wanted more info to make a conclusion that universal healthcare isn't working for Canada. Thanks for quoting me so I can clarify that for you.

---

So, you effectively dismissed the conclusion of the foremost think tank in studying Canadian healthcare as their conclusion does not fit with your beliefs. You certainly have clarified that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

When was the last time Sinfix posted anything "liberal" that was wrong or misleading that I didn't clarify for him?

---

You support every politically liberal position. Everyone has seen that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Yes. Arguing a position that doesn't exist. You're fluent at it.

---

You are so far off base here, it's almost as laughable as you have become.
I gave you a clear report that passed peer reviews of some of the top Canadian minds, in the top Canadian think tank, on the subject of Canadian healthcare. You somehow state that there is another accurate set of data out there, with no reference to where it is - and you think that I am arguing about something that doesn't exist? Let me explain to you what doesn't exist - that would be facts that support your claims and beliefs. You just never seem to have any of them, and you make claims and tell us to "trust you". Just take a minute and think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Sorry. Take your blinders off.

---

Perhaps you need to take your blindfold off.
Show me where you named another think tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

So you just posted a bunch of terms. You didnt actually post your opinion on them.

---

No one asked for opinions. Those are conservative principles I support. Which is what I was asked for.

Quote:

---

I am going to completely refute EVERYTHING you have said about the Frazier study.

If you are saying universal healthcare and public option healthcare are conservative ideas, you got that from a conservative think tank.

---

False. Good job on that refuting. Lol

Quote:

---

How are you going to stand by the findings of that think tank, then completely ignore the findings of another?

---

For the 57th time, I haven't ignored anyone's findings.

Anyone ELSE want to ask me if I ignored anyone's findings? lets go ahead and get it out of the way.

Quote:

---

Lets be real though, they are not conservative ideas at all. A true conservative wants as little govt intrusion in everyday lives as possible.

---

They all are conservative ideas actually. And yes, I want as little government intrusion as necessary.

Quote:

---

One more thing. If you believe in free markets, you cannot possibly believe in govt option or universal healthcare. Both of those are designed to artificially manipulate the markets.

---

Like fire departments manipulated free fire department market right? LOL

Healthcare as you know it is completely divorced from all free market principles. Universal Healthcare is a completely fiscally responsible solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

So, you effectively dismissed the conclusion of the foremost think tank in studying Canadian healthcare as their conclusion does not fit with your beliefs. You certainly have clarified that.

---

For the 58th time.....

Let me help you out here. Their conclusion was not that universal healthcare doesn't work for Canada. Their conclusion was that costs are rising.

Quote:

---

You are so far off base here, it's almost as laughable as you have become.
I gave you a clear report that passed peer reviews of some of the top Canadian minds, in the top Canadian think tank, on the subject of Canadian healthcare. You somehow state that there is another accurate set of data out there, with no reference to where it is - and you think that I am arguing about something that doesn't exist? Let me explain to you what doesn't exist - that would be facts that support your claims and beliefs. You just never seem to have any of them, and you make claims and tell us to "trust you". Just take a minute and think about it.

---

Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done

Quote:

---

Perhaps you need to take your blindfold off.
Show me where you named another think tank.

---

I didn't. Didnt say I was going to either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

For the 58th time.....

Let me help you out here. Their conclusion was not that universal healthcare doesn't work for Canada. Their conclusion was that costs are rising.

---

The conclusion was that Canada's system was unsustainable with its current model, which started in 1984. That means that it is starting to run into issues in less than 30 years. Does that sound like a system that the US should tout as a shining example of what the US government should do for its citizens? What happens when Canada no longer has the financial capability to sustain its current health system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done

---

"I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research." - YOU, today.
Where is this mainstream research? Fraser Institute actually is the mainstream and is ranked in the top 30 think tanks in the world. You can't get much more mainstream than them.

"...an opinion financed by lobbyists" - YOU, today.
This is certainly your opinion, but only your opinion. No other learned organization or individual have the same opinion though - just you.
Fraser's financials are pretty open, and I showed them earlier. Their positions on donations is clear also, and well known. The donations they receive are unrestricted and come only from private foundations, organizations, or individuals. This just isn't working out for you, is it?

"If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers." - YOU, today.
I don't even have to say anything here. You claimed it. ^^ See Above. "Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done" - YOU, now

First you had reading comprehension issues, now you have memory problems as well. You should see a doctor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I didn't. Didnt say I was going to either.

---

That's because you have none that you can name that have addressed the issue. You have no basis for your statements other than your own personal opinion, which is fine, but it does not match to the facts and data.
You have not presented any facts or data to refute anything posted today. Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

"I just would like to see someone else back up an opinion that goes against mainstream research." - YOU, today.

---

Not an opinion. A request for more supportive information.

Quote:

---

"...an opinion financed by lobbyists" - YOU, today
This is certainly your opinion, but only your opinion. No other learned organization or individual have the same opinion though - just you.

---

Except its not an opinion. It's a fact, referenced by the facts I posted earlier. Lobbyists donate to think tanks. That's what they do. This isn't an opinion and it isn't debatable.

Quote:

---

"If their numbers are accurate, then somewhere else there are another set of accurate numbers." - YOU, today.
I don't even have to say anything here. You claimed it. ^^ See Above. "Havent made a claim or belief yet. Done" - YOU, now

---

Another non opinion.

Do you know what opinion means?

Quote:

---

That's because you have none that you can name that have addressed the issue. You have no basis for your statements other than your own personal opinion, which is fine, but it does not match to the facts and data.
You have not presented any facts or data to refute anything posted today. Nothing.

---

havent looked for any. Presented facts, which you continually vehemently confirm, and then deny at the same time. You're pretty bad at this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Not an opinion. A request for more supportive information.

Except its not an opinion. It's a fact, referenced by the facts I posted earlier. Lobbyists donate to think tanks. That's what they do. This isn't an opinion and it isn't debatable.


Another non opinion.

Do you know what opinion means?



havent looked for any. Presented facts, which you continually vehemently confirm, and then deny at the same time. You're pretty bad at this game.

---

You have no facts to back up any of your statements, your statements are nothing but opinions.

You clearly cannot comprehend your own statements and what they are.

Fraser accepts donations from many sources, as do all think tanks, and universities that have the means to study and publish opinions. They don't print their own money, and don't do it for free. Good luck finding an organization that does studies without outside contributions.
Fraser is known for not linking donations to studies, and are known to be open about their finances. Most top think tanks are that way. Of course, this is something that you don't know or realize.

There is no game here. I present facts and studies from intelligent people, you fail to present anything of value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You have no facts to back up any of your statements, your statements are nothing but opinions.

You clearly cannot comprehend your own statements and what they are.

---

Fact. I asked for more information. I don't understand how you're disputing that because I asked it. "I want more info" is not anywhere close to an opinion by any stretch of the English language, and to continue to claim it is an opinion is either a poor troll or English isn't your first or second language. I wouldn't argue that any further because you're just trolling yourself at this point. Case closed on that.

Fact. Koch brothers are conservative lobbyists, and they donated to the Fraser Institute. I don't know why you're disputing this either, because you said it yourself, and there's plenty of evidence Ive already quoted that supports this. This isnt up for debate at all, because no one disputes this at all. You lost that one too. I wouldn't argue this any further because you'll just be arguing with and against yourself, unless you're prefacing any subsequent arguments with "I indeed don't understand English...". Case closed on that one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Fact. I asked for more information. I don't understand how you're disputing that because I asked it. "I want more info" is not anywhere close to an opinion by any stretch of the English language, and to continue to claim it is an opinion is either a poor troll or English isn't your first or second language. I wouldn't argue that any further because you're just trolling yourself at this point. Case closed on that.

Fact. Koch brothers are conservative lobbyists, and they donated to the Fraser Institute. I don't know why you're disputing this either, because you said it yourself, and there's plenty of evidence Ive already quoted that supports this. This isnt up for debate at all, because no one disputes this at all. You lost that one too. I wouldn't argue this any further because you'll just be arguing with and against yourself, unless you're prefacing any subsequent arguments with "I indeed don't understand English...". Case closed on that one too.

---

I need more information is not a "fact", there is no actual existence of anything such as quantifiable data there. It's a statement that you are using to not accept the facts in front of you. (Oh, and that is an opinion.)

I never disputed that Koch Industries donated - I was the one that specifically stated that from the start, so that you wouldn't try to claim it later as being a hidden agenda (we have seen that behavior before).
You initially rejected this report based upon the donation of money from Koch Industries to Fraser Institute, and you immediately assumed that it was related to this study. You keep saying that they are conservative, and that is the only reason that you give for this item, but then in another thread, you claim that Obama is right of center (which is conservative), and that you are conservative on issues as well. Why would Koch Industries founders be an issue for you then, since I have shown that there is no correlation between the donations and the results of the study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

It won't happen in reality. In the real world, companies don't tell you how much they pay towards your insurance premiums, and all you see is what you pay out of your check towards it. Companies are not going to magically add it into your paycheck. With Obamacare, they will just claim that they are paying it in taxes to the government for your healthcare. I guarantee that no large company is going to give any of the premiums that they pay out to their employees. It won't happen, as it is an elective, not mandatory benefit.

---

First of all, I get a total compensation package every year from my employer. I know exactly how much they pay for my health care, disability, etc. That's actually irrelevant though. Salaries are not dictated by individual employers, they are determined by market forces and negotiation. Unless every company colludes to pay all their employees less (by reducing their benefits), those companies who reduce health benefits without replacing compensation, will lose their employees to other companies that will pay them full market value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Single payer IS government managed. You cannot have a single payer private solution that is not - that would be a monopoly, and as you should be already aware, those never work in favor of the consumer/citizens if they are not government managed.

---

I didn't say private single payer, I said private OR single payer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Companies offer health benefits for two main reasons - to attract employees and to keep employees. It's that simple. It is in the employers best interest to attract the best employees and to retain them. It's the same as paid vacation/sick days, life/dental/medical insurance, pension, 401K's, etc - these are benefits offered by the employer as part of a compensation package. Traditionally, they have not been required to offer benefits like health insurance.

Why get rid of them? That should be up to the private employers who are giving them as compensation packages to attract employees that they deem valuable to their business. Regulation of compensation provided by employers is a start down a dangerous path. What's next, government controlled and mandated salary caps? How is it the government's role to determine what a private company can choose to pay an employee?

---

I'm not suggesting they should be legislated away directly. I am suggesting we have a system that will not incentivize business to provide them in the first place. For example, if you can't set rates by using pre-existing conditions, the negotiating advantage of businesses with insurance companies is greatly diminished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

There is no way for a private individual to negotiate rates based on diversified risk. When your employer negotiates with an insurer, they can get a lower overall rate because individual risk is spread over a large pool of participants.

---

Exactly my point above. If you can't set rates based on pre-existing conditions, they can't determine risk at an individual level and thus large businesses lose their negotiating advantage. This will lead to more flat rates for everyone regardless of whether they work for a megacorp or if they are a business of one. This will encourage entrepreneurship and a more mobile workforce since people won't be so afraid to lose their company health benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Of course it COULD be, and in all honesty, it should be. The issue is that in real life it wont be. Our govt has proven that it can do absolutely nothing in a smart or efficient way. Under govt control, health care will go from 17% of GDP to 25% in 5 years and top 30% in 10 years. You can bank on that.

---

I really do understand your POV. We both recognize it COULD be better. Our main disagreement is that you have given up on government to EVER get better at efficiency, whereas I have not. Unfortunately, I fear your 17% to 25% GDP numbers will be true whether we have a single payer system or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

First of all, I get a total compensation package every year from my employer. I know exactly how much they pay for my health care, disability, etc. That's actually irrelevant though. Salaries are not dictated by individual employers, they are determined by market forces and negotiation. Unless every company colludes to pay all their employees less (by reducing their benefits), those companies who reduce health benefits without replacing compensation, will lose their employees to other companies that will pay them full market value.

---

I've worked for two Fortune 50 companies that do not give out that information to their employees. It's certainly not available system-wide, and unless you legislated that into healthcare, it is unlikely to happen system-wide. Obamacare has not included that legislation.

While employers do look at the market, and tend to follow it in a general sense, the offer comes from an individual employer, and is an agreement between the individual and the company. Supply and demand works here, and in an economy like we have today, the employer has the ability to dictate the pay in many fields. If the employer did not, then we would not have minimum wage laws. The mere fact that we do shows that employers do have the ability to dictate wages in many (not all) instances.

It would not need collusion to have employers remove benefits without adding compensation. It only takes a few big players to do it, and then many more follow suit. Case in point, up until a few years ago, most large companies offered full pensions to employees, but look now, big Fortune 100 companies have managed to remove pension plans and replaced them with 401K plans that do not cost the employer as much, and have not raised salaries to address the compensation issue. A record high of 70 companies in the Fortune 100 provided only a 401K or similar type of retirement account to new hires in 2012, compared with 67 employers in 2011, and 63 employers in 2010. In 1998, 90 companies in the Fortune 100 sponsored a traditional or hybrid pension plan. This was done without collusion.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere have already looked into dropping all healthcare plans - and without collusion between them. (AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010).
I can tell you for a fact that one of those 4 has greatly reduced what they pay towards healthcare benefit already - without increasing compensation in any of their other benefits. I have first-hand knowledge of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I didn't say private single payer, I said private OR single payer.

---

Government single-payer - According to Canada's top think tank, and quite a few independent analysts, Canada's provinces are spending too much to keep the same benefits much longer. But we have nothing to be concerned about, because the US government is so efficient, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I'm not suggesting they should be legislated away directly. I am suggesting we have a system that will not incentivize business to provide them in the first place. For example, if you can't set rates by using pre-existing conditions, the negotiating advantage of businesses with insurance companies is greatly diminished.

---

I am not against unhitching individual medical plans from employment. It's a good idea, and would empower individuals to change jobs with more ease.
What I don't see is how you can take away a method of compensation that employers value highly. The reason that they offer health plans is to get the employee to want to stay and work. Unless you legislate that they cannot offer a health plan, businesses will find loopholes to get around it, and the insurance companies will help them - it is cheaper for an insurance company to write a policy for 200,000 people than to write 200,000 individual plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

I've worked for two Fortune 50 companies that do not give out that information to their employees. It's certainly not available system-wide, and unless you legislated that into healthcare, it is unlikely to happen system-wide. Obamacare has not included that legislation.

---

As I said before. It's actually irrelevant. Employees recognize that company health care benefits have a lot of value even if they don't know the exact dollar amount. People definitely take benefits into account when looking at jobs, not just salaries. Yes the opacity of health care costs can make it more difficult to judge but it is very much a factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

While employers do look at the market, and tend to follow it in a general sense, the offer comes from an individual employer, and is an agreement between the individual and the company. Supply and demand works here, and in an economy like we have today, the employer has the ability to dictate the pay in many fields. If the employer did not, then we would not have minimum wage laws. The mere fact that we do shows that employers do have the ability to dictate wages in many (not all) instances.

---

If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

It would not need collusion to have employers remove benefits without adding compensation. It only takes a few big players to do it, and then many more follow suit. Case in point, up until a few years ago, most large companies offered full pensions to employees, but look now, big Fortune 100 companies have managed to remove pension plans and replaced them with 401K plans that do not cost the employer as much, and have not raised salaries to address the compensation issue. A record high of 70 companies in the Fortune 100 provided only a 401K or similar type of retirement account to new hires in 2012, compared with 67 employers in 2011, and 63 employers in 2010. In 1998, 90 companies in the Fortune 100 sponsored a traditional or hybrid pension plan. This was done without collusion.

---

But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere have already looked into dropping all healthcare plans - and without collusion between them. (AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010).
I can tell you for a fact that one of those 4 has greatly reduced what they pay towards healthcare benefit already - without increasing compensation in any of their other benefits. I have first-hand knowledge of it.

---

Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Government single-payer - According to Canada's top think tank, and quite a few independent analysts, Canada's provinces are spending too much to keep the same benefits much longer. But we have nothing to be concerned about, because the US government is so efficient, right?

---

We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

I am not against unhitching individual medical plans from employment. It's a good idea, and would empower individuals to change jobs with more ease.
What I don't see is how you can take away a method of compensation that employers value highly. The reason that they offer health plans is to get the employee to want to stay and work. Unless you legislate that they cannot offer a health plan, businesses will find loopholes to get around it, and the insurance companies will help them - it is cheaper for an insurance company to write a policy for 200,000 people than to write 200,000 individual plans.

---

Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

If salary negotiations are actually just dictates from employers, why would they pay anyone more than minimum wage? I think your argument makes sense for minimum wage jobs but I don't see how it applies to better paying jobs.

---

Because people that employ higher wage earners know what the market dictates for someone with a particular resume. In fields that still negotiate salary, competition for the best and brightest go a long way to decide salary and benefit packages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

But companies didn't just get rid of pensions, they replaced them with 401(k)s. Now you can argue that the value of 401k contributions did not match up with pension benefits but that is a hard case to prove and is rather subjective. For example, if your company went bust, you may lose your entire pension. A 401(k) is yours even if your company goes under. Also, as you mentioned, some companies still have pensions. Why didn't they just get rid of them and thus lower their costs as you suggest would happen with health care benefits? It's because they know it will attract employees who consider a pension a valuable addition to their salary.

---

Surprisingly, you are correct. You are forgetting one aspect though. Without doing any research, I am willing to bet that most, if not all, of the companies still offering a defined benefit pension are union shops. You can also add mobility in the workforce has really lessened the usefulness of a traditional pension. People just arent staying in a job for 30 or 40 years and retiring like they used to. I used to work with a guy that started there in the late 60's. It was his first job after he got out of the military, and the military was his first job period. People simply dont do that anymore, so you will see that fewer and fewer hourly employees actually see it as the benefit they used to see it as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Sure, in the short term it may work like that on an individual company basis, but over time, their employees will switch to other jobs that provide them more total compensation. My main argument is that company health benefits are not totally different from salary. They are both forms of compensation that employees care about and take into their decision making.

---

This may happen, but probably not in the numbers it would take to force companies to change their practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

We are having the same problem here in our quasi-free market system. Health care costs are becoming overbearing. So while you are right that a single payer system won't solve that problem, our free market system isn't solving it either.

---

Most of the reasons for the rise in healthcare costs are caused by the govt. You can look at tort laws, you can look at medicare/medicaid, or you can look at state directed mandated coverage. Can you think of a single govt program that brings the cost of health care down? I know I cant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Individual plans are only difficult to do because you have to look into those individuals medical history. If pre-existing conditions can not be used as a basis for policies, there is no longer a need to do that laborious work.

---

And if you cant look at their history, how are you going to accurately quote a price for the coverage? Just like when you apply for car insurance, they look at your history to assess the risk, then charge in accordance with that risk.