reply to post by uaocteaou
I'm going to just say what a lot of people have PM'd me....
You are suspected of being an agent of DISINFORMATION, attempting to further the agenda of the health insurance lobby.
First, I don't care what anyone who PMs you thinks. The mere fact that you get PMs from them says enough.
If they are so sure of themselves, then they can post and challenge me directly.
I've said this at least 6 times (
search for the terms and see for yourself):
I DESPISE INSURANCE COMPANIES. I DESPISE EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. HEALTH CARE REFORM IS NECESSARY. HEALTH CARE WILL NOT BE IMPROVED BY
GREATER GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT.
Clear enough?
I've also explained WHY I say what I do.
I've worked for insurance companies. I've worked for government.
I've worked against insurance companies. I've worked against government.
Against is better. And more rewarding. Always.
(search for that, too)
Understand?
Any questions?
Is this true? I'm just asking because you have initiated A LOT of threads slamming health insurance reform, and in doing so, you continue to
deny scientific studies and established, widely accepted data that shows reform is necessary.
No. I have slammed GOVERNMENT CONTROL of health care.
"Widely accepted" means ZERO as proof of anything.
I agree that "reform is necessary."
You just don't get it, do you?
I'm being serious jdub.
I hope that's a joke, because the only reason I even respond to your pathetic replies is because YOU ARE A SHILL setting up softballs to be hit out
of the park, or left to moulder in the minds of those too feeble to "call you out" on such baseless assertions, parroting propaganda.
This is a joke right? Or are you?
You start threads about a public option, many different threads, all attacking the same thing, but in different ways.
No, again. I start threads that point out the flaws, distortions and obfuscation of those posing a "public option" as a means to arrive at a
single-payer (government) system.
(By the way, single-payer does not work. It will not work with a population of 350 million patients. But THAT's a different topic/thread, no?)
You start the thread, stay on the thread, day and night, while you insult people in favor of reform, cite scientific studies as having
"flawed data", and You deny ignorance in almost every post on every thread.
That (in bold) is a baldpfaced lie, and you know it.
I have NEVER insulted "people in favor of reform."
That's a straw man, as well. What people? Where? For what?
Once again, braniac, I AM IN FAVOR OF REFORM.
And I only quote the ATS motto to support others who see the light on things, seem to need encouragement, or just need to be reminded to NOT be
ignorant.
Many posts just end with my initials.
Every fact is in dispute regarding reform,
You seem to equate government-run health care with "reform." They are not the same thing. In my mind, they are mutually exclusive.
yet every thing you say is beyond reproach.
That may be true. Thank you for noticing.
Look, if you post something, or a list of 15 somethings, followed by the word "fact." That does not make it so.
If you say "a recent Harvard study reported on you tube and CBS says 45,000 people die because they are uninsured,"
I'll tell you that the study covered 9,000 people, made no inquiry into lifestyle and preventive care or pre-existing conditions (if you've got some
things, no amount of insurance will save you), and CHOICE to insure or not insure themselves, casue of death, likelihood of recovery or successful
mediation through treatment, availability of care despite lack of insurance, and many other factors that do not support the widely repeated statement
that "45,000 die BECAUSE OF NO INSURANCE."
The study itself only created an ESTIMATE and a CORRELATION.
It made absolutley no conclusions about CAUSATION.
And, I would've asked you to post a link to your "source" (that is, "a Harvard Study").
NOT a youtube clip, or a reporters report on the report, or a blog on the report.
How about we look at THE REPORT?
We cite studies, polls and established, accepted fact, and you cite ATS, usually threads or posts that you have initiated, as being proof of
something, usually that the insurance companies don't need reforming.
Ever heard of "junk science?" Anyone can find an "authority" to support anything. I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours.
Understand this, too:
I will not hold myself to a higher standard of proof than that to which you hold yourselves.
Show me yours, you get to see mine. Fair is fair.
"Accepted fact?" "Polls?" You're still joking, right?
If I cite ATS, it is because the same or a similar issue has already been addressed, you'd been challenged to show proof and refused or disappeared,
and it is shorter than going through the whole thing again and again and again with you.
When you cite the "45,000 die" crap in a day or two, I'll link to THIS thread as my next shortcut.
Keeps me from having to repeat myself.
Are we clear on this?
If not, send me a PM.
Oh, in case you're wondering, I thought up a "reform" plan a few years ago when I was in the middle of a huge fight with an insurer. I won, and
thought, 'there's got to be a better way.' So I put one together, published it in several places, and shared it HERE with people who've PM'ed ME.
Guess what. MY reform plan doesn't rely on insurance for basic and preventive care. Doesn't rely on government either. It relies on people like
us.
It's been tested at micro- and macro scale and it works. People are treated better, get well quicker, and it costs less than what we pay today under
this mangled mess everyone insiusts on calling a "system."
Deny ignorance.
jw
