Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Reddit, my dad just sent me this email forward about health care. It's wildly inaccurate and misleading, and my entire family believes this stuff. How should I respond to them? : AskReddit
House and Senate Bill Link: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/houseandsenatebills.html
Here are a few one liners from the House health bill:
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt.
Will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30, Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT.
COMMITTEE that decides what treatment you get.
Pg 29, lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42, of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose YOUR Health Care Benefits for you.
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!
PG 50, Section 152 - Health Care will be provided to ALL NON-US CITIZENS, ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE!
Pg 58, - Govt.
Will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59, lines 21-24 - Govt.
Will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
PG 65, Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Pg 72, Lines 8-14 - Govt.
Is creating a Health Care Exchange to bring private Health Care Plans under Govt.
Control.
Pg 84, Sec 203 HC bill - Govt.
Mandates ALL b enefit packages for private Health Care Plans in the Exchange.
Pg 85, Line 7 - Specifics for Benefit Levels for Plans = the govt.
Will ration your Health Care!
Pg 91, Lines 4-7 - Govt.
Mandates linguistic appropriate services, i.e, translation for illegal aliens.
Pg 95, Lines 8-18 - The govt.
Will use groups, i.e., ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for govt.
HC plan.
Pg 85, Line 7 - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans.
AARP members, your health care WILL be rationed.
Pg 102, Lines 12-18 - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.
NO CHOICE.
Pg 124, lines 24-25 - No company can sue GOVT.
On price fixing. No judicial review against Govt.
Monopoly.
Pg 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors/AMA, the Govt.
Will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145, Line 15-17 - An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into public option plan.
NO CHOICE.
Pg 126, Lines 22-25 - Employers MUST pay for Health Care for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149, Lines 16-24 - ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Pg 150, Lines 9-13 - Businesses with payroll between $251k & $400k who doesn’t provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Pg 167, Lines 18-23 - ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable Health Care according to the govt.
Will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Pg 170, Lines 1-3 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes.
(Americans will pay.)
Pg 195, HC Bill - officers & employees of HC Admin.
(GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.
Pg 203, Line 14-15 - The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.
(Yes, it says that!)
Pg 239, Line 14-24 - Govt.
Will reduce physician services for Medicaid.
Seniors, low income, poor will be affected.
Pg 241, Line 6-8 - Doctors, it doesn't matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.
Pg 253, Line 10-18 - Govt.
Sets the value of a doctor's time, professional judgment, etc.
Literally, the value of humans.
Pg 265, Sec 1131 - Govt.
Mandates & controls productivity for private Health Care industries.
Pg 268, Sec 1141 - Federal Govt.
Regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Pg 272, SEC.
1145 - TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS.
Cancer patients, welcome to rationing!
Pg 280, Sec 1151 - The Govt.
Will penalize hospitals for what the Govt.
Deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298, Lines 9-11 - Doctors, if you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a miss read, the Govt.
Will penalize you.
Pg 317, L 13-20 - OMG!!
PROHIBITION on ownership/investment.
Govt. tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318, lines 21-25,1-3 - PROHIBITION on expansion.
Govt. is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.
Pg 321, 2-13 - Hospitals have an opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required.
Can you20say ACORN?!!
Pg 335, L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt.
Mandates establishment of outcome based measures.
HC the way they want it.
Rationing.
Pg 341, Lines 3-9 - Govt.
Has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc., forcing people into the Govt.
Plan.
Pg 354, Sec 1177 - Govt.
Will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
Pg 379, Sec 1191 - Govt.
Creates more bureaucracy;
Telehealth Advisory Committee.
Can you say HC by phone?
Pg 425, Lines 4-12 - Govt.
Mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations.
Think Senior Citizens end of life (assisted suicide).
Pg 425, Lines 17-19 - Govt.
Will instruct & consult regarding Living Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney.
Mandatory!
Pg 425, Lines 22-25, PG 426, Lines 1-3 - Govt.
Provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.
Pg 427, Lines 15-24 - Govt.
Mandates program for orders for end of life.
The Govt. has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429, Lines 1-9 - An Advanced Care Planning Consultation (assisted suicide) will be used frequently as patient's health deteriorates.
Pg 429, Lines 10-12 - Advanced Care Consultation may include an ORDER for end of life plans.
AN ORDER from YOUR GOVERNMENT!!
Pg 429, Lines 13-25 - The govt.
Will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
Pg 430, Lines 11-15 - The govt.
Will decide what level of treatment you will have at the end of YOUR life.
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services are Non-profit organizations.
Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!
Pg 472, Lines 14-17 - PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG.
One monthly payment to a community-based organization.
Like ACORN?
Pg 489, Sec 1308 - The govt.
Will cover Marriage & Family therapy.
Which means they will insert govt.
Into your marriage.
Pg 494-498 - Govt.
Will cover Mental Health Services, including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
HOW'S THAT HOPEY, CHANGEY THING WORKING OUT FOR YA NOW?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Anybody have any additional info on http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/ ?
I'm assuming they're a front group for some sort of GOP organization.
My entire family swallows this stuff hook line and sinker without even questioning the rhetoric at all.
They're convinced that Obama is going to refuse health care to old people and encourage more illegal immigrants to come here for our health care...
Which makes no sense because it will apparently be sub-standard care soon, so why would that draw them here?
My family is slightly...
Frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Betsy McCaughey -->
Hudson Institute -->
Eli Lilly (pharmaceutical company).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why the fuck is this man being downvoted?
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_McCaughey
Also they have an invalid whois data ( is not an address) http://wdprs.internic.net/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, this in no way connects any of these people or organizations with the email.
The author just cited a source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yet that site makes similar crazy claims all over the place, so it too is guilty.
The actual email text came from (well at least was adapted from--forwards never continue verbatim) Peter Fleckstein who put up the BS list on his blog: http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know the feeling my dad watches Fox News for about 4 hours a night.
And listens to Rush and all that other neo-con talk show BS.
:...(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My dad used to watch Fox a lot.
I used to be afraid that he'd been brainwashed or something by them.
However, I then saw him laughing at Glenn Beck and O'Reilly.
I then felt content that he was only watching Fox for laughs.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think 40% of fox's viewer ship is just people giggling at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly, that's almost worse, to my mind.
It lowers your 'mental immune system' with regard to that atrocious tripe if you're willing to laugh at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt. After I get off work, it's the only entertaining thing on tv.
I think I like it because it gives me someone to argue with even when I'm alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not well funded at least, it appears to be made with Microsoft Word and contains several files trying to load from the author's C drive.
You'd think that the Hudson Institute could afford even a half assed web developer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tear your family apart by telling everyone your dad's been having an affair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually really good advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent username/comment combo we got here.
Edit for continuity: Just wanna tell you guys for ▆▆▆▆ ▇▇.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't figure out what he redacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upvoted for use of redacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I added the edit after his comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But your name isn't "combobreaker".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bestof'd
http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/992rm/brilliant_use_of_novelty_usernames_bad_advice/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should post as bestof_linker_guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She is also listed as a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So refute it point by point instead of calling names.
Sounds like you don't have the same ability to understand the bill.
You just love the new Messiah: Oh Bummer.
Come on, stop pointing like a body snatcher!
Do something rather than blindly accept things you can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You sir are the biggest asshole I have seen in a long while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't been goatse'd lately huh?
Then again...maybe you have and he still qualifies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just like you did in your post beginning with "Actually, you sound like you're full of shit" - right?
Point by point, showing that you have a clear understanding of the issues.
As opposed to simply throwing out a few 'sound bites' and expressing your frustration at everyone else's ignorance - right?
Good advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell them not to take any email written by a child seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got this email form a co-worker who spammed it out to everyone at the office.
Here is my response:
I appreciate your concern on this issue, and I respect your view of the situation.
However, I feel you should know a few things.
(I apologize for it being so long, but please read it)
This is not a "Healthcare" overhaul, it's the addition of a government funded Health Insurance Plan and new regulations on the Health Insurance Industry.
You WILL NOT be forced to enroll in this plan, but the insurance companies WILL be forced to compete with a more fairly priced plan from the government.
The points at the end of your email concerning being forced to do anything are both intentionally misrepresenting the bill and attempting to spread fear through propaganda.
This is a common technique used by lobbyists, the Insurance Industry and the members of Congress who are in their pockets (lobbying dollars from Health Insurance Agencies to Congress are at an all-time high).
Not to mention, this line: " The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
" is just absolutely ridiculous.
No government would ever attempt this.
It'd be a heinous intrusion on the rights of its citizens and there would be mass riots and chaos.
This is also an obviously gross exaggeration of the wording of the bill, meant to scare you into opposing reform.
Also: " Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government intervenes in your marriage.
" This is a blatant misrepresentation.
Look at the wording: "government will cover marriage and family therapy." Meaning they will pay for it.
Not " intervene in your marriage ".
More scare tactics.
" Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment;
Government dictates how your life ends.
" This is not the wording of the bill.
The bill provides the optional service to the elderly, who wish to plan the last years of their life (called a "living will").
This is not, in any way, shape, or form the government telling you when, how, or where your life ends.
" The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you.
You will have no choice.
None. " You will have a choice.
This bill will not get rid of the private insurers, so if you don't like the government-paid plan, you can still get health insurance through a private company!
Nothing about the healthcare system will change, except for who is paying for it.
Instead of the bill going to your Private Insurance company, it would go to the government instead (if you choose that plan).
You get to keep your doctor, doctors get to have their own private practices, physician services (and the money they make) will not change, and so on.
And, it's cheaper for the average American!
As far as bureaucracy is concerned, we are already in way over our heads.
The current U.S. Health Insurance system sees about 30-35% of every dollar being spent on paperwork and overhead costs (such as CEO bonuses, etc.).
That number is far greater than any other Health Insurance system (including Canada, France, Sweden, and all those other universal systems).
Also, if you recall, we currently have a government run Health Insurance system, but only for the elderly (see: Medicare).
There has been much talk of potential "rationing" of Healthcare, where the government would effectively choose your treatment (or lack thereof).
This would, in fact, be no different than the current system, where the Insurance Industry weighs the "profitability" of treating you, and reserves the right to deny you treatment (by not paying for it) when they would be losing money.
In fact, it has been policy of these companies to actually award larger bonuses to employees who deny healthcare claims!
An example is this story, where a 17 year old girl was denied a liver transplant by her insurance company.
The difference here is the government would be rationing only elective procedures, not life-and-death ones such as an organ transplant or chemotherapy (as insurance companies do now)
As far as the funding is concerned, the people who benefit from this overhaul will not be taxed to pay for it.
The proposed tax is >on the wealthiest 1% of people, who controlled approximately $16.8 trillion in total wealth in 2008 (about $2 trillion more than the lowest 90% total).
Also, these ultra-wealthy pay an historically low amount of taxes for having such wealth (some pay about 15% in taxes, lower than most working-class Americans!).
This bill is also a matter of economic urgency.
Consider these numbers:
-- 50 million Americans are uninsured (or 1 in 6) -- in 2008, 1/5 of every household's income went to healthcare >costs (this number has gone up since the >stock market dropped and foreclosures increased) -- speaking of foreclosures, approximately 40% of all private >bankruptcies (not companies) are due to >medical bills accumulated due to lack of insurance.
In all, wasted about an hour of my time, but I hit 'reply all' and got some significant praise for it, and many people appreciated the well-thought out and logical argument I made.
feel free to do some fact checking of your own, and maybe throw in this where on page 200 it lists the overall healthcare performance of all nations (US = 37th)
Or this story of a woman being denied brain cancer surgery by her insurance company .
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there would be mass riots and chaos
I hate it when people say this as if it's a valid defense.
It's not a real counter-arguement.
That, and I've pretty much lost my faith in Americans getting worked up over anything that matters anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No kidding -- what are we, French highschool kids?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even those shitheads go out and set fire to cars during riots.
Us? We might toilet paper our third grade gym teachers house.
Why? Because we're knobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A shithead can be cleaned up, but when water is applied to a knob, it's just a soggy knob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The French government is way more afraid of its citizens than the US government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. When did it stop being 'the government is afraid of the people' and switch to vice versa?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40% of the way through the 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why didn't you just say 1984?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reddit is starting to piss me off with their nonsense downmodding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Want to really get pissed?
Download the greasemonkey script that tells you exactly how many upmods/downmod a comment has.
You'll see a post that tells you how to be a better person and save the world and while it will have 100 upmods, there will still be a bitter sick group of thirty or so downmodders.
Hell, even the guy that had cancer and needed to find a home for his cats received a number of downmods.
Even one a helpful comment from one of the creators of the site were downmodded by a number of people.
How do idiots find reddit?
Oh yeah...digg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't downmod cancer victims trying to find homes for their pets...
But this fucking article is one of about half a dozen per day we're seeing on the subject.
And everyone mod-rapes anyone that has any criticisms at all.
The only one you're even allowed to have, it would seem, is to complain that whatever healthcare plan Congress is giving, it's not enough .
I don't want to see sick people die, or live in cardboard boxes.
But if your only solution is socialism, maybe you are more concerned with furthering your political goals than helping people...
Because that is not the only possible answer.
I am not a rich man.
I'm not a paid shill for an insurance company.
But all these articles scream propaganda to me.
And no honest solution ever needed that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we call it downmod instead of downvote, are we really modifying the original comment when we select the down arrow or are we just voting against it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it especially heinous when someone is downmodded solely for voicing an opinion that goes against the popular view here.
Just because someone has a different viewpoint is not a reason to downvote them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why didn't you just say: The Year of Our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Four?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because that takes an inordinately long time to say.
You may not have noticed, but so does "40% of the way through the 80s."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Year of Your Lord Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Four?
FTFY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, a smarter person would have said that the legal obstacles prevent that from ever happening as the Government couldn't possibly cover that kind of liabilty from abuse.
IE i'm saying the government couldn't afford to pay the legal bills defending the abuse of such a law, thus it can't by definition work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you sound like you're full of shit.
Now it's 50 million?
Why, just the other day it was 47 million.
Then there is the argument that only 10 million are truly in need.
Which is it?
And you're obviously not a student of economics.
Add your 50 million demand to our supply of doctors serving 250 million and, voila, a major shift in the curve.
When a salesman tells you you have to buy it now, then you should walk away.
That is the situation with this proposed legislation.
The rest of your folly is not worth wasting an hour of my time on, but I'm glad you got a bit of comment karma points from the ill informed who bought your garbage.
Tell me again about page 16?
Never mind. You're paid to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, you sound like you're full of shit.
Now it's 50 million?
Why, just the other day it was 47 million.
Then there is the argument that only 10 million are truly in need.
Which is it?
50 million is a nice round number, whats 3 million when we're talking about tens of millions of people.
And you're obviously not a student of economics.
Add your 50 million demand to our supply of doctors serving 250 million and, voila, a major shift in the curve.
It's not like US doctors are over worked.
Furthermore, those 50 million are under 65 and are not dirt poor.
They're the least likely to see a doctor barring some emergency like an accident or unexpected disease.
They're in the age and economic group least burdensome to a public system.
However, their personal bankruptcies resulting from these accidents or diseases have a big negative effect on the economy as well.
When a salesman tells you you have to buy it now, then you should walk away.
That is the situation with this proposed legislation.
May be true.
However, in the government's case, when they say lets wait and mull it over, it means nothing will get done.
They've done countless studies and analysis, and they have systems world over to model theirs after with improvements.
Stalling is pure bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 million is a nice round number, whats 3 million when we're talking about tens of millions of people.
It's a very large city.
It's a small state.
It's 3 million people.
It's 6%, or a very sizable minority.
In most elections, that's more than enough to turn the tide from winner to loser.
I daresay that if your argument requires you to add a very large city or small state to this nation, if it requires you to add 3 million people to it...
And then go ahead and defend this as "it's no big deal", that maybe you have a poor argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's also an extra 6%.
Hardly that statistically significant.
However, using your analogy in regards to 47 million.
There are only 26 nations in the world that have more population more than 47 million.
It's sad you guys have that many uninsured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's sad you guys have that many uninsured.
It's sad that somehow in the minds of what are supposed to be rational adults, insurance has become a substitute for medical care.
Everyone complains about how evil the insurance is, but suddenly it will be a good thing if we have more of it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. A rebuke of dizzying sophistication.
Let me paraphrase:
50 is higher than 47.
You can't be rounding for ease;
You must be lying.
"Economics" says treating everyone would be really hard.
I won't bother mentioning what kind of economics, or explaining why other countries provide health care to their citizens but it's just too hard for us, or even explaining how the difficulty would negate the moral imperative.
Just...you know, economics!
Numbers! Curve! I'm smart.
Who needs nuanced debate when you have a vaguely applicable proverb?
I was going to support this legislation, but, well, my mother always said not to buy a Winnebago from the Knights of Columbus.
Whew!
That was tough, reducing your argument to rubble and all.
I'd go on, but it's really hard for this page to contain all my wisdom.
How about instead I indulge in the debate equivalent of making farting noises with my arm and running away laughing?
Parting shot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 is higher than 47.
You can't be rounding for ease;
You must be lying.
A) How is it easier to use 50 rather than 47?
Both are two digits.
B) There is "ease of rounding", and then there is inflating numbers to make the situation look more dire.
C) Rather than admit this, you try to defend it.
That speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if it is off the top of your head, it is easier to remember 50 than 47.
Not only that, but if you aren't sure whether it is 47 or 48, you can say 50 and be safe, because 50 is as summed to have one less significant digit than 40 something.
If it wasn't rounding, usually something like "exactly 50" or "no less than 50" would be said to clarify.
Otherwise, it is generally assumed "50" means "between 45 and 55." I round up and down to 50 all the time, it isn't unusual and there is no reason to assume it is inflating numbers to make the situation more dire unless you had solid evidence that he was a consistent unnuanced apologist who spun every fact like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You WILL NOT be forced to enroll in this plan...
I think both you and the author of the original email should brush up on use of the subjunctive mood in English, e.g.
It would , if passed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems really inappropriate to send political emails to your coworkers.
You did the right thing by providing a rebuttal, but why in the hell would he be sending that in the first place?
The last thing you need in a workplace is divisive political arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I work for a fairly large corporation and in my particular office if someone sends anything political/religious to an entire distribution list our HR department comes down on it quite quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I work for a state government and using a state-funded computer system to distribute political views is illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how do you send emails about a campaign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about sending racist jokes about the sitting president?
Can you use a government funded computer system for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is perhaps about the only occasion that I can think of when I have heard of someone using the "reply all" function that actually made sense to me.
I will have to remember that as a method of dealing with some of the sometimes moronic rhetoric that I receive, as indeed it is not adequate to simply set the record straight with the original sender, but necessary to rebut the crap to everyone else that has been subjected to it.
Somehow, I suspect that the volume of e-mails sent through the month of August this year are going to be truly astounding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use reply-all to correct forwards like this and it has a couple effects--people might learn something and you start getting less and less ridiculous forwards.
Once you have zinged someone in front of 10 of their friends they will think twice before forwarding something again (or at least forwarding it to you!).
Win win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did this to my sister once.
It was on her work email list, and she tacked me on at the end.
Now the entire Anchorage school district knows exactly how wrong forwarded emails usually are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And let me guess--no more forwards?
Works like a charm :).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you invite them all to the lemon party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, god no, particularly not my sister.
I merely thoroughly bludgeoned her with the facts behind her spurious email, at some length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did something like that once with one of those people that I went to high school that randomly sent me the Obama email.
The one that supposedly Quote: d Snopes?
The one that if you go to snopes it says it was bull?
Yeah, I haven't heard from that chick since then.
Kinda sucks because she was hot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 million Americans are uninsured (or 1 in 6)
Whether you are for or against this plan, you should know that the 50 million number is extremely misleading (and it's supposed to be 47 million anyway, but I'll go with 50 for the moment).
At least 12 million of those are illegal immigrants.
It's estimated that another 10 million can easily afford health insurance but just prefer to pay costs out of pocket.
And at least another 10 million are eligible for programs now but just don't sign up.
So that leaves you with 18 million US citizens who need insurance but don't have it.
Now that's still a problem, but 18 vs.
50 is a significant difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't change the fact though that 47 million are still uninsured not 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You WILL NOT be forced to enroll in this plan, but the insurance companies WILL be forced to compete with a more fairly priced plan from the government.
The government funds the program through taxes.
How the hell is that fair competition?
it's cheaper for the average American!
In order for it to truly be cheaper, it has to be more efficient.
Shuffling money around isn't going to make the total cost decrease.
How are they increasing efficiency by bringing government into the equation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The freeper arguments against a government plan is:
a) The government can't do anything right.
b) The government will ration your care.
c) The government is woefully inefficient.
d) The government so inefficient and gives such shitty service that everyone will flock to the government plan and run private insurance companies out of business.
Something surely does not wash here with the freeper worldview.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your gross simplification leaves out half of my very short (thus, no excuse for not reading) comment.
That's ok though, you probably only posted it to show your cleverness by using the word "freeper".
There are at least two factors that go into a person's choice of one service (or product) over another.
The quality of the service, and the price .
Through taxes, government can make the service appear very, very cheap, causing people to be attracted to it, even if the quality is not so hot.
Don't be fooled though;
You are still paying for it , just not directly.
Once a majority of people are using the government health insurance because of the price, politicians will likely say "Our plan is clearly better, so we don't need that private insurance.
Lets get rid of it".
At this point, the government plan would be the only left, and with absolutely no alternatives available, quality would be free to decline greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which is of course why it costs so much more in countries with nationalised healthcare, and why the WHO rates the US #1 for healthcare performance.
/S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politicians will likely say "Our plan is clearly better, so we don't need that private insurance.
Lets get rid of it".
How does that make any sense at all?
How is a politician going to justify abolishing a business just because it's not as efficient?
The USPS does a good job, but politicians have yet to "get rid of it." I don't think it works that way.
Incidentally: people, why is Doji's comment getting downvoted?
It's a well-worded, logical argument.
I think the Reddiquette guide addresses this specifically: you don't downvote something just because you don't like it.
I didn't agree with the comment, but I upvoted it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, perhaps abolishing competition is a little on the extreme side.
However, future legislation would probably trend in that direction.
Suffice to say, the government's advantages would make it very, very difficult to be a competing insurance company, and not necessarily because the government is offering better service.
Thanks for being so reasonable.
It's a nice change from the rest of these comments.
It seems Reddit has recently chucked Reddiquette out the window.
Maybe it's the fault of the Digg invasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The taxes are necessary to pay for health care for people who can't pay for it, not to make it cheaper for those who can;
If you think that the private insurance industry is worried about "unfair competition" in insuring the folks who can't afford to pay for insurance, then I think you might be confused.
The idea would be that the insurance premiums paid by the folks who switch to the paid version of the plan would cover their costs, while the taxes would pay for the people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford insurance.
Aside from covering those who can't afford insurance, the plan is supposed to be revenue neutral.
The uninsured are a very large group at present, so of course it will cost a lot of money to insure them!
The "problem" is that if the government plan competes well on price, then private insurers are going to be forced to rein in their record profits.
Oh noes! They might need to innovate and improve their product to compete on grounds of quality!
Can't have that!
And those companies aren't going away;
That's just more FUD they're spreading.
They just won't be able to stick it to people the way they have been for decades now.
See point d above.
And given the amount of money given to congress by insurance companies, I don't think they're going to deside to "get rid" of the industry any time soon.
That's just silly talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that's also why Private insurers don't exist in countries with free universal healthcare.
Oh. Wait a second.
They do exist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure why people are downvoting you.
I support healthcare reform but everything you're saying seems reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for saving me an hour of my time when someone sends me this email...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful with that "reply all" button.
I did that with a family member on some blatant propaganda recently and got removed from his facebook page and apparently his telephone contact list as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why argue with your family about it?
It's not worth it, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're dad is well beyond the reach of reason...as evidenced by his consideration of this nonsense as legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to think that, but now I suspect that some people really are just beyond the reach of reason (I'm lookin' at you, Dad...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep seeing these "how should I respond to relative/friend who believes stupid idea x" posts.
The answer is ignore them, if they believe this crap in the first place, you're not going to change their minds by making them think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so much the person SENDING the email but the people RECEIVING.
If someone is on the fence about this issue and they're gullible enough to believe emails then this propaganda bomb will set them over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He should defend his stance, cause otherwise, his family will most likely think of him as an uninformed jackass.
The father that sent the e-mail obviously feels he's more informed on the situation than the rest of his family (since he has these "facts").
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you cannot change their mind, standing up to someone with an audience usually means you can win some of the observes over.
And you can change people's minds sometimes.
You probably shouldn't aim to do it all in one go, but just rationally explain your point of view and hope that over time the ideas will sink in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He should just respond that he thinks less of his father every time he sends you one of these e-mails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's searchable versions of the draft bill all over the internet.
Here for example.
From there, you can correlate some of these claims with the actual language of the bill.
I think you'll quickly find that they're preposterously overblown bullshit.
For example, this -- "Pg 429, Lines 10-12 - Advanced Care Consultation may include an ORDER for end of life plans.
AN ORDER from YOUR GOVERNMENT!!" -- sounds pretty horrible.
Death squads after Sarah Palin's baby, etc.
However, if you search the corresponding page numbers in the draft bill, you'll find the following:
DIVERSE REPRESENTATION OF PERSPECTIVES.--The members of the Commission shall represent a broad range of perspectives and shall collectively have experience in the following areas:
(1) Epidemiology (2) Health services research (3) Bioethics (4) Decision sciences (5) Economics
...Nothing about an "order" for an "end life of plan" from "YOUR GOVERNMENT." Instead, the people who wrote your father's email took an innocuous passage from the bill -- basically a passage that states that at least one member of this commission should have some experience with "decision sciences," which I assume is end of life planning stuff -- and gave you death squads.
Go ahead;
Search the rest. I did a few more lines (the ones about special needs and prohibition, specifically), but didn't bother to type them up.
EDIT: See below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I'm defending the email but you're comparing the wrong document - read page 429 from the document the email is reffering to http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200IH.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So people are getting outraged over a version of the health care bill hosted by people who don't want the health care bill.
Well, read page one of this health care bill I'm hosting: Article 1: BARRACK HUSSAIEN OSAMA will kill and eat your babies if they isn't healthy enough.
Article 2: The GOVER-MINT will take all of your money in taxes and give it to poor immagints.
Shit dude, did you read that there?
We have to stop this bill, its evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow
At least it's not a load of boring shite
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people are so hungry to be right that they actually like being spoon-fed bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It bothers me that so many people are willing to latch onto something so poorly written.
The blind leading the blind.
If I spent an hour composing fear-mongering propaganda, I promise it would be a little more ominous and terrifying.
Make an effort astroturfers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pg 58, - ...a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
I'm guessing a large contingent of fundamentalist christian types would consider this the mark of the beast .
Not sure what significance it has, otherwise, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A national ID would be bad.
Too bad the ruling party hasn't shot themselves in the foot with legislation like this, then we'd be done with them for good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creating a national healthcare id card would be so bad that it would destroy the democratic party forever?
Care to expand on that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does your nationally issued SS card instill that same kind of paranoid, totalitarian fear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the state is telling me that i'm a number.
It doesn't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am not a number, I am a free man!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, a lot of people want a voter ID card, but liberals say it will cost to much and thereby keep them from voting.
But we can afford to give them a national health ID.
Get it now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the cost of the voter ID cards was the issue, as the states that require them give them away free, but I see the point that it would be an extra layer of unnecessary bullshit that might cause people to not receive care if they don't have the card, or have trouble getting one, which is analogous to what the Dems were arguing with voter IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should have said that they claimed the cost of the card would be passed on to the voter (and now what, not pass it on to the one on the dole?) Much is amiss in the thinking of liberals.
If a driver ID costs $50, who should pay for the medical ID?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pg 58, - Govt. will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Somehow I don't think the concern here is cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell him to put that e-mail on hold.
Those things have yet to come to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't one of their main jokes (which I don't believe): "Canada comes here for our health care!" ...then adopt Canada's health care and you won't need to worry about Canadians coming over for the same service they get at home.
By the way, I don't actually believe US's health care will be as "socialist" as the Right-wing makes it out to be, but if they're going to make that argument then they can't make a second argument about Canadians coming over for private care, since public care solves that problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It won't be as socialist as the Right makes it out to be, because they're operating on negotiating theory.
You see, if you call anything that's even close to moderate 'socialism' in this cultural context, then you can get 'moderate' redefined to 'center-right', and then you don't even have to work to win things your way.
Everyone will start from 'the middle', which means if you negotiate them to a standstill, you've won, and if you lose a little, well, they're still on your side of the midline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You assume that logic is important to these people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell them the bill passed last night, and then euthanize them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're wrong the email is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a republican and I believe whatever I'm feed because I don't have a brain in my head.
/ sarcasim I'm not really for any party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignore it. You're not going to change what he believes and it's not worth putting a rift between you and your dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forced commerce =/= Socialized healthcare.
Regardless of how they choose to work out the specifics, it's going to fail in the same way that healthcare has failed in this country thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of thing works because it's outrageous.
People exist as both emotional and rational beings.
As long as the healthcare reform's tied to a negative emotional state, then reasoned point-by-point refutation of this kind of nonesense will not quell the induced outrage.
That's the point of scare-mongering statements : induce people into a state of irrational ourage where they'll be beyond reasoned argument.
.. you have to keep them outraged and beyond reason to keep them blinkered.
Unfortunately, most people believe that clear reason is sufficient in itself to sway people.
.. this wont do. You have to sway them emotionally into the alternative view and then allow them to see reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For months I've been looking for this kind of insight - thank you!
I choose my battles wisely, engaging in debate only with people I know & respect.
Yet time & time again I'm met with their refusal to stick to facts, and with arguments over matters of opinion.
It's frustrating - and frightening to think that, if the tables were turned, I could be that person!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what emotional hook would you use?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know they put exclamation marks in bills.
Is this for real?
Like the paraphrasing I mean.
I am not planning on reading that document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Pg 321, 2-13 - Hospitals have an opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required.
"
So community input on what type of health service they'd like their own community to receive is a bad thing??
Then why the FUCK ARE THEY SENDING OUT AN EMAIL ASKING FOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT ON THE ISSUE???
Just let the bill pass and then refuse the service if you hate it.
My community doesn't have wifi but I don't get mad that we have the option of installing the service.
So in regards to your family, don't argue with them, just tell them they have the opportunity to opt out if they don't like the bill, so they should stop whining about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should grab a copy of the bill, read a few cited sections, see if they hold any water, and reply.
Though I wouldn't do it for all.
5 sections will probably give you an idea of how fairly the email represented the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Download the bill and go line by line through all of these outrageous claims and debunk them while quoting the actual bill .
These are quite obviously bullshit and are easily refuted.
They are quite literally making stuff up.
If you take the time to do this (and you should!), post it online so that the next guy can use your work.
Use the exact phrasing that the chain email does so that people can find you in search engines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, you should report these emails to flag@whitehouse.gov so that these can be debunked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your dad is over 65 tell him to stick it up his socialist butt.
He's already got (crappy) socialized healthcare!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to regretfully inform my father that he was full of shit when this issue came up, for that very reason.
He just turned 65, and still thinks that any form of government intervention in healthcare is evil, but he'll happily take the discount on drugs and treatment.
Not to mention the $1200 a month in dole money from social security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ways I reply to these kind of e-mails.
Reply with "Unsubscribe."
Inform them that only small minds use demagogue as their only form of persuasion.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
Usually "Unsubscribe" gets the point across.
Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emails from your dad contain an unsubscribe link?
That might get awkward around Thanksgiving if he finds out you opted-out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell them to read the bill and compare it to the claims made http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/ just for good measure.
They don't check all the claims however!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans.
There is no mandated audit.
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
False: Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package.
It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation.
It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) Barely True: Section 123 establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee that makes recommendations on what types of health insurance coverage will be defined as basic, enhanced or premium.
The committee will be chaired by the surgeon general, with members appointed by the president, the comptroller general, and representatives of federal agencies.
This committee makes recommendations on insurance regulations, so in that sense it does set standards for benefits.
But it does not make decisions about treatments for individuals.
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you.
You will have no choice.
None. Pants on Fire!: Section 142 outlines the duties of the Health Choices commissioner, who is charged with regulating insurers.
The commissioner should seek insurers to offer different types of insurance, including basic, enhanced and premium.
Individuals will be able to choose among competing insurers who are regulated via the exchange.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.
Pants on Fire! Section 152 includes a generic nondiscrimination clause, which says insurers may not discriminate with regard to "personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." It says nothing about "non-US citizens" or immigrants, legal or otherwise.
In fact, the legislation specifically states that undocumented aliens will not be eligible for credits to help them buy health insurance, in Section 246 on page 143.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records.
It says one goal should be real-time confirmation of which services a person qualifies for and how much they will have to pay.
That could be achieved by machine-readable beneficiary cards, according to the legislative language.
But the legislation does not require the cards.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records.
One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing.
The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers.
The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) .
Pants on Fire! Section 164 creates a temporary reinsurance program to help employers or employee associations pay for coverage for workers ages 55 to 64.
It does not mention labor unions or community organizer groups, though presumably they could qualify for subsidies like any other employee association that previously offered health insurance.
The section's point, however, is to offer subsidies to employer-based insurance programs, not unions or community organizers.
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
True. Private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in the exchange, and this page begins an explanation of exchange rules.
However, the requirement that insurance companies must conform to is also presented much earlier in the bill.
We spotted an earlier reference on page 15, Section 101.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) .
Mostly True. Section 203 sets rules saying that plans must offer basic plans before they can offer plans with extra benefits.
These extra benefits are defined as enhanced plans and premium plans.
(The unstated assumption here is that enhanced and premium plans will be more profitable for the insurance companies.) But this isn't the page number that requires health plans to participate in the exchange.
Technically speaking, private insurance plans are not required to participate.
Rather, only insurance sold on the exchange will satisfy the mandate that people have health insurance.
In effect, private health plans that want to sell to individuals will have to sell through the exchange, under the terms of the bill.
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
Translation: illegal aliens.
Half True. Section 204 outlines more regulations for health insurance plans in the exchange.
One of the requirements is that they provide "culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services." Another part of the bill mentions that this includes "effective methods for communicating in plain language." There is no mention of citizenship status.
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
False. Section 205 says the Health Choices commissioner is charged with publicizing the options on the health care exchange.
The legislation says the commissioner "may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate the dissemination of information." The bill does not mention ACORN or Americorps.
The bill also says that the commissioner must publicize the "Exchange-participating health benefits plan options," which would include private insurance plans.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
False. This page describes people who would qualify for Medicaid, a government insurance program for people with very low incomes.
It says that individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid only if they have "not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." So the auto-enrollment only happens if they have not chosen another plan.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing.
No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly.
Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Barely True. Section 223 discusses how the government will pay doctors under the public option health insurance;
They will pay 5 percent more than Medicare pays.
It's true that this section does not set out any sort of judicial review, but it specifically states that health care providers do not have to accept patients under the public option.
The bill also says that the Health Choices commissioner has the authority "to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient," taking into account "amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans." There may be a broader case to be made that the government can outcompete private insurers through the public option, but this section of the plan doesn't have to do with lawsuits or judicial review.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
Barely True. Section 225 discusses payments for physicians who choose to accept the public option insurance.
Again, there may be a broader case to be made that the government can outcompete private insurers through the public option, but this section of the plan only applies to payments to doctors for patients who are part of the public option.
The government does not set wages for doctors because doctors are free to decline to see the patients.
Finally, a few words about the e-mail's origins.
It appears that someone out there based it on the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who publishes commentary on the Twitter messaging service under the name Fleckman .
(Some of the e-mails we receive credit him, but many do not.) Fleckenstein strongly opposes the Democratic health plan and labels most of his posts #tcot , which stands for "top conservatives on Twitter." Fleckenstein has also posted the analysis at his blog, Common Sense from a Common Man .
Many of the e-mails we received have made changes to Fleckenstein's original tweets, and the e-mail we've checked here has made changes as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good, but a bit lengthy to expect most people to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the blow-by-blow, but there have been a number of studies (too lazy to look them up) that show that conservatives (yes, this is not true of liberals), when presented with facts that contradict their viewpoint, will actually end up believing their viewpoint even more strongly.
And that, in a related study, presenting people with a set of refuted "myths" can leave people of any stripe believing the myths something like a week or two later--even if they hadn't heard the myths before.
The answer?
No idea. I guess we still have to try.
And if you're sending a letter like that to a family member, it might make it past their filters.
But it's frustrating that telling people the truth, even backed up by the real data, can actually reinforce their belief in a falsehood...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The last 500 pages are all about Unicorns and Rainbows and are acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is all nonsense.
If he does believe all this propaganda, he is indeed likely beyond reasoning.
Maybe one way to possibly (though unlikely) reach a switch somewhere would be to send him one of those descriptions of how dihydrogen monoxide is lethal in large concentration, corrodes most metals, is a major constituent in acid rains, displaces millions of people each year, etc.
Anything, even water, can be described as evil if you don't care about reality.
This description is in very bad faith, deceives people and makes all rational evaluation of the situation (which is unarguably terrible for millions in the US) and health care around the world (which works better and cheaper than in the US while being much more controlled by the government than anything even proposed lately).
Here's one: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html and another: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.
I'm really he would at least understand that distortion of facts works even for the most harmless of elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's nice grampa.
Have some jello.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ship them off to China to experience REAL socialism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
China isn't real socialism.
Real socialism is a lot more like Norway/Sweden/Denmark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
China is not socialist what-so-ever.
Really. The closest thing they have to wide spread socialism, the government control of the means of production, these days is rampant corruption.
But yeah, no, they aren't socialists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But yeah, no, they aren't socialists."
May I suggest a course in writing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've taken a number, and have won awards and received a nontrivial amount of praise for my writing.
Not that that actually means anything, nor that you should think I'm a Brilliant Wordsmith as a result (indeed, I generally consider myself a mediocre writer at best, actively bad--and at times incoherent--at worst).
Rather, I say this only to indicate my writing has received external validation in terms of its adherence to socially agreed upon standards of construction and form.
Having said that--though this should be fairly self evident--I feel I need to point out that there is a fundamental difference between colloquial speech, text as colloquial speech, and formal composition.
While in a formal context "But yeah, no, [statement of correction]" might be...
Less than ideal , not only is it an exceedingly common construction in informal spoken language [which, in turn, is the style that most internet comments attempt to emulate, and as such serves as a generally acceptable standard of form], it is also entirely syntactically correct.
"(But yeah [back to my point/as I was saying]), (no [the statement to which I am referring--in this case them being socialists--is incorrect]), (they aren't socialists) [further elaboration upon/restatement of the previous clause]."
So, yes: you may suggest a course in writing.
That said, I see no reason why you should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree w/ both your points, am a fan of so-called European Socialism to be exact.
I guess my use of the word was indeed hyperbolic per the questioner.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get this spam from my conservative family members as well.
I just opened this today..
"FINALLY...THE TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION WAS ASKED THE OTHER DAY ON THE "ABC..OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE" OBAMA WAS ASKED, "MR.
PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ?
OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT !!!
A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS...WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT !!!!
IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN) EXEMPT HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA OR CONGRESS BUT "OK" FOR THE REST OF US?
WE AMERICANS NEED TO STOP THIS...
ASAP !!!! AND REVOLT...
THIS IS WRONG IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON.
IF NOT, PLAN TO SUFFER (WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN ....FOR FREE....
WHILE OUR POLITICIANS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If my email system would only block emails typed entirely in caps, I'd receive 50% less spam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign up for Health Care For America Now!
Newsletters.
"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing." TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work.
Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed.
The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.
"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc." TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.
"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals." TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period.
Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods.
This section does not create more restrictions.
"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)." TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.
"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?;
Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc.
Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time;
Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death;
Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment;
Government dictates how your life ends;
Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates.
This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.
An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT;
Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life." TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere.
HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years.
This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide.
Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.
"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN." TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.
"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN." TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN.
"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government intervenes in your marriage." TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491;
In brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.
"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services." TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan.
No alternatives." TRUTH: This is simply not true.
Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013.
Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.
"Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families." TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees.
No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.
"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll" TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees.
The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%.
Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.
"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll" TRUTH: This is false, see above.
"Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income." TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what "acceptable health care" means (basically, insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to this rule.
"Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them)." TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance, nor will the receive federal assistance, because they are not required to purchase health insurance.
They are not exempted from individual taxes generally.
"Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records." TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement.
For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps.
As is clearly stated on page 196, "Return information...
May be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.''
"Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that." TRUTH: This Quote: is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a calculation used in the bill.
Full context of Quote: : "'(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.''
"Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid.
Seniors and the poor most affected." TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services.
It makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is recalculated every year.
The bill will, in fact, create much more opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.
"Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)" TRUTH: Page 241 does not say this.
Nowhere does it say this.
It does say that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of specialty.
These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in primarily therapeutic or preventative care.
"Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc." TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have been made up completely.
The section deals with 'misvalued codes' meaning that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a specific service.
This will allow the government to, for example, pay more for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures.
The author of these criticisms separately attacks the bill for paying the same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.
"Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries." TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity measures.
There is no mandate or control of anything.
This merely updates the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.
"Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs." TRUTH: This is simply not true.
This slightly amends existing guidelines for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs.
This section introduces no 'regulations' that are not in the Social Security Act.
"Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!" TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word "rationing" is a way to deflect attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified fear.
This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse.
"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions." TRUTH: This is almost correct.
The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions.
Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary.
The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.
"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government." TRUTH: This is patently false.
The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission.
This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy.
It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.
"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!" TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse.
This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading.
Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations.
Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.
"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion.
Hospitals cannot expand without government approval." TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in.
The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.
"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN." TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts.
In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input.
This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others.
There are no payoffs.
There is no money exchanged in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Health Care For AMerica Now!
The contents of the email I am replying to are patently false.
If the anonymous writer of this email had actually read the bill, he or she would know better.
Here are the facts.
Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
Actual itemized contents of the Health Care Reform Bill: "Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!" TRUTH: This is not an "audit," it's a study.
Moreover, the bill states (pp.
22-23) that the report will "include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers." This is almost directly the opposite of the email's claim.
"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!" TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard.
In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.
"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)" TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans.
In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.
"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you.
You will have no choice.
None." TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties.
The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans.
Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.
"Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services." TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not be allowed in the provision of health care services.
Nowhere does the bill state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services.
The bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.
"Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard." TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards, mentions that "determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility...may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." In no way does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.
"Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer." TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government.
In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.
"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)" TRUTH: Here's what page 65 says: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations.
"Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange." TRUTH: That's true!
Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, bat can offer other plans as well.
But that's fair, isn't it?
Private insurers can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish - should the government establish no standards for the exchange?
In that case, how could reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?
"Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)" TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package.
"Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
Translation: illegal aliens" TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with their doctor.
This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of undocumented workers.
"Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan." TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps;
All it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options.
"Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter." TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles.
Far from depriving people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.
"Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing.
No 'judicial review' is permitted against the government monopoly.
Put simply, private insurers will be crushed." TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own rates.
Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be "crushed" by government competition.
"Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages." TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public health insurance plan option.
However, private insurers will continue to pay their own rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who gets their information about policymaking in a format most used by comedians ought to know that what they're getting is a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TELL HIM and them they are all fucked douse them in gasoline light them all on fire and blame the mexicans.
Its what i am doing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refer them to Comrade Obama's 'Death Panel'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My entire family believes this stuff.
How should I respond to them?
anybody want kool-ade?
:D /joke/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send it to the flag@whitehouse.gov email box immediately.
That'll get your father on Obama's government watch list where he belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All right, enough.
We need a "United States health care debate" subreddit so that the rest of us can stop listening to this nauseatingly incessant pile of cock shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...cock shit.
Cock shit.
Cock shit! Cock shit!!!
Amazing expression, I've never heard it before.
Where the hell is that expression used?
And to what does it refer?
Is it used as a replacement for "bullshit" somewhere?
Does it have other meanings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pg 666, Lines 666 - Obama will reveal himself to be The Beast and eat all your moneys.
Like ACORN?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The email is debunked at Please...
Cut the Crap .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell them that Canada has already been there, done that - 60 years ago.
When Tommy Douglas (then premier of Saskatchewan) ramrodded his dream of universal medicare through the provincial legislature, the medical establishment was so pissed about it - due in a large degree to the sheer amount of FUD that had been promulgated - that the doctors went on strike for 23 days.
Getting medicare to the rest of the country was equally fraught with howling and angst, and took almost 20 years from start to finish.
And look at us now - if any politician even hinted about taking our universal medical insurance away today, they'd be set upon by ravening hordes and torn to pieces.
And Tommy Douglas, who was battled every step of the way by fear-mongers, liars and thieves?
Is now revered as our Greatest Canadian.
My his ghost whisper in your President's ear, and keep the poor man's courage unwavering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can feel nothing but empathy for the millions of people who are so blind to reality and are nothing but sheep, following the shepherds of fear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salon.com's rebuttal to some of this crap:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell them if that's how they want it don't expect any help with medical bills from you if they get rejected from insurance companies, because that's just communist!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the wording is vague enough to be interpreted wrong, then there's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my god. My dad sent me the same damn thing and I had the same reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG 50, Section 152 - Health Care will be provided to ALL NON-US CITIZENS, ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE!
Sweet, this means I get both Canadian and American healthcare!
I'm never going to die!
Muahaha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would love to see health care provided to all non-US citizens and US citizens everywhere, all over the world.
It would be nice to see the US lead the world toward something like that, but won't be holding my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huffington post actually had something about this exact email.
They do a damn good job at breaking down line by line each thing that is wrong about it.
I can't for the life of me find it again.
But it was legit, I actually went back and checked them when I was having this argument while I trolled an anti-Obama group on facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2009/07/deconstructing-the-right-wing-lies-health-bill.html
This is a quick and easy link to send back that deconstructs a lot of this.
Not to say that HR3200 is great.
Hopefully HR676 takes its place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to them with Ad Hominems and straw man attacks.
It's probably what they'll understand best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ignore his behavior as an unnecessary distraction.
No use rewarding bad behavior.
Which is probably what the media and health ins.
Wackos are doing to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is your family then don't reply.
Just let it go...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Dad,
Whoever sent this list of easily refuted lies thinks you're an idiot who will believe anything you read.
I know you are not a stupid man, so this disappoints me.
By getting you to forward this, he is making you a liar.
I know you are not a dishonest man, so this disappoints me, too.
I sincerely hope we can agree that there's a big difference between what you want to be true and what is actually true.
We can look at the legislation and disprove all of this bullshit together if you like.
I also sincerely hope you will turn a critical eye to the people who are making you look like a gullible liar.
While you're at it, please give some credit to your loving son who knows you're just a well-meaning man who wants what's best for his kids and his country, just like me.
-me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Canada.
A couple weeks ago I thought I broke a rib while participating in a sporting event.
So one day, before work, I visited one of the hundreds of privately operated medical clinics in my city.
The nurse took my government medical card to register me, and within 10 minutes I was assessed by the doctor.
For this I pay $96/month for my whole family.
The clinic simpy bills the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if the clinic could have billed the government $960,000,000 they would have, which is how things will work in the USA because all the Americans are so corrupt that the bankers cheat people until they're bankrupt and poor, and the poor people even cheat the welfare department.
Forget it, the USA is completely lost, it's rotten to the core.
There's nothing to be done but hope they don't annihilate the rest of the world as they thrash themselves into the dustbin of history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buy a new family with brains?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a shotgun. Clearly your the only member of your family that should be allowed to reproduce, so sort this one out shotgun style, otherwise ask them how much of thier paycheck goes on healthcare, then [if true] laugh at them because people in france/canada/uk/etc all spend much less on taxes that go to healthcare!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do this sort of thing for each and every line:
Pg 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors/AMA, the Govt.
Will tell YOU what you can make.
(1) PHYSICIANS.—The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year, in one of 2 classes: (A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those phy- sicians who agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.
(B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not to impose charges (in relation to the payment rate described in section 223 for such physi- cians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.
Oh wait, the only things Republicans are able to read is ridiculous Republican rhetoric.
So I guess rational thinking won't work here.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omg thank you for this.
I got this from my dad as well and i just replied about the euthanasia thing which i addressed from an earlier email.
The lies and slander that run wild through email forwards and spew from peoples mouths (ahem, palin and fred thompson) are just fucking ridiculous but yet they will still believe it and still forward it.
Until they learn to use BCC, i think the fight will never end unless we give up on this misinformation battle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pg 666-669 - The govt.
Will own your ass.
YOUR ASS WILL BE THEIRS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go completely over the top and start calling for the overthrow of the expressionist regime!!!!
At that point they will start acting like you have gone too far and so now you flip like coin and get them to view your view point by making them argue it themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beat them about the head and neck with something heavy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A link to snopes.com cc'd to everyone he forwarded it to in the first place.
And then tell him not to send you that sort of bullshit anymore.
Worked amazingly for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|