FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Americans DON'T want government healthcare.





Voodoocat
According to the most recent Rasmussen poll, 53% of Americans now oppose the Congressional health plan.

Link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform
ocalhoun
As I see it, this is the more important statistic:

the poll wrote:
As in earlier surveys, those with strong opinions are more likely to oppose the plan rather than support it. The current numbers: 24% strongly favor and 37% strongly oppose.



Those who can't be bothered to have a 'strong' opinion about it have no business deciding.

(I do, however, continue to oppose decisions based on polls.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
(I do, however, continue to oppose decisions based on polls.)
Thanks ocalhoun, I thought for a while that I had been the only one. Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
(I do, however, continue to oppose decisions based on polls.)
Thanks ocalhoun, I thought for a while that I had been the only one. Smile

Well, I oppose the healthcare plan for entirely different reasons... I consider polls to be completely irrelevant. (There are two exceptions: 1: Voting. 2: A poll with a sample size containing 100% of the people represented. An example of results for #2 would be: Yes- 0.00004%, No- 0.00005%, Declined to Answer- 0.00011%, Not Questioned- 99.9998%.)
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, I oppose the healthcare plan for entirely different reasons... I consider polls to be completely irrelevant. (There are two exceptions: 1: Voting. 2: A poll with a sample size containing 100% of the people represented. An example of results for #2 would be: Yes- 0.00004%, No- 0.00005%, Declined to Answer- 0.00011%, Not Questioned- 99.9998%.)


My polls are much more simplistic..."Does this suck? YES/NO" would suffice for me most of the time. Wink
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, I oppose the healthcare plan for entirely different reasons... I consider polls to be completely irrelevant. (There are two exceptions: 1: Voting. 2: A poll with a sample size containing 100% of the people represented. An example of results for #2 would be: Yes- 0.00004%, No- 0.00005%, Declined to Answer- 0.00011%, Not Questioned- 99.9998%.)


My polls are much more simplistic..."Does this suck? YES/NO" would suffice for me most of the time. Wink
Laughing Laughing Fits in with your previous mention:
Quote:
I doubt therefore I think therefore I am
Laughing

Mine would be more along the lines of "can we afford it? YES/NO"?
Bikerman
Quote:
can we afford it? YES/NO
Well, interestingly enough I agree - that is indeed the question.
The major pressure for change comes from the political realisation that the US system is unaffordable in anything but the short term, not from a left-wing political agenda.
That is one reason I am not overly interested in the result of the debate. The US has been here before with the Clinton proposals. On that occasion selecting his wife to head it up was a bad political move and it died the death - that could be regarded as one of Clinton's worst failures.
Voodoocat
Ocalhoun wrote:
Quote:
I consider polls to be completely irrelevant


But Statistics is a well respected branch of Mathematics! After all, statisticians have the statistics to prove it Shocked
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
can we afford it? YES/NO
Well, interestingly enough I agree - that is indeed the question.
The major pressure for change comes from the political realisation that the US system is unaffordable in anything but the short term, not from a left-wing political agenda.
That is one reason I am not overly interested in the result of the debate. The US has been here before with the Clinton proposals. On that occasion selecting his wife to head it up was a bad political move and it died the death - that could be regarded as one of Clinton's worst failures.
For me what is significant is that at the time when the Clintons were working on the proposal the economy was in slightly better shape than it is right now. So for it to succeed when the Clintons had failed, it would have had to be a million times better from a cost and simplicity point of view. I don't think Obama needs to give up, as obviously the majority of the citizens wish for a major overhaul, but right now focus needs to be on the budget. Obama has been postponing discussion of it, and this has to be detrimental for Government. There has to be a number of people pressuring him to get on with it.
Vrythramax
It's rather ironic that we are discussing if the US government can afford something or not. The fact we are broke has never stopped spending in the past. Why not spend some of that money we didn't have in the first place and take care of our own citizenry?
ocalhoun
Vrythramax wrote:
It's rather ironic that we are discussing if the US government can afford something or not. The fact we are broke has never stopped spending in the past. Why not spend some of that money we didn't have in the first place and take care of our own citizenry?

Because sooner or later that philosophy of "we're broke, so let's spend even more money" will catch up to us...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
It's rather ironic that we are discussing if the US government can afford something or not. The fact we are broke has never stopped spending in the past. Why not spend some of that money we didn't have in the first place and take care of our own citizenry?

Because sooner or later that philosophy of "we're broke, so let's spend even more money" will catch up to us...
I'm surprised it has not already caught up with the US. The Chinese and Japanese who are holding the largest part of the US debt must be having sleepless nights. I still wonder however how they can call in their loans? I remember at one stage the South American countries who had been so deeply in debt and unable to pay up, just simply forfeited on the loans, and I'm not sure whether I remember correctly, but there was one US Bank in particular that almost went bust, or did the US Government just bale the loans out again with greater debt? That was in the nineties. And the South Americans and US Government are still rocking on .... all of it really boggles my mind! Brick wall
handfleisch
Vrythramax wrote:
It's rather ironic that we are discussing if the US government can afford something or not. The fact we are broke has never stopped spending in the past. Why not spend some of that money we didn't have in the first place and take care of our own citizenry?


We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!" Now negativity and want-to-failism is prevailing, spurred on by shills for the insurance company repeating talking points ad nauseum.

Where were all these people worrying about cost when the USA dump trillions of dollars of blood money down the toilet for the illegal war on Iraq?

To say the USA cannot afford what all other industrialized countries can afford is a bad joke.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
It's rather ironic that we are discussing if the US government can afford something or not. The fact we are broke has never stopped spending in the past. Why not spend some of that money we didn't have in the first place and take care of our own citizenry?


We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!" Now negativity and want-to-failism is prevailing, spurred on by shills for the insurance company repeating talking points ad nauseum.

Where were all these people worrying about cost when the USA dump trillions of dollars of blood money down the toilet for the illegal war on Iraq?

To say the USA cannot afford what all other industrialized countries can afford is a bad joke.
I get the sense that you think that the other industrialized countries are better off than the US. Are you sure they are? And are you sure the US is as badly off as you think it is?
handfleisch
Health care for poor in USA: Third world clinic in first world country.
Remote Area Medical is a charitable medical organization created to help impoverished third world countries. Then they realized that parts of the USA needed their help just as much.






READ http://www.dailyyonder.com/remote-area-medical-hospital-under-big-top
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/11/18/magazine/20071118_HEALTHCARE_SLIDESHOW_4.html

deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Health care for poor in USA: Third world clinic in first world country.
Remote Area Medical is a charitable medical organization created to help impoverished third world countries. Then they realized that parts of the USA needed their help just as much.
I agree with you. Charity has to start at home. I notice Angelina Jolie on her media publicized trip a few days ago and wonder how many needy people there are in the United States who need her help as much. I realize she was acting on behalf of the United Nations, but a few trips in the United States I am sure would have been even more meaningful. Having her photos taken in war zones may look more romantic perhaps? Does not make sense to me however. The USA is not unique in this though. Has to be in human nature that we find it far more meaningful to travel abroad, rather than to travel our own countries and take a real close look at our own backyards, instead of having photos taken of war torn backyards of other countries all the time in order to show how good we are when we are contributing when we do.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Health care for poor in USA: Third world clinic in first world country.
Remote Area Medical is a charitable medical organization created to help impoverished third world countries. Then they realized that parts of the USA needed their help just as much.
I agree with you. Charity has to start at home. I notice Angelina Jolie on her media publicized trip a few days ago and wonder how many needy people there are in the United States who need her help as much. I realize she was acting on behalf of the United Nations, but a few trips in the United States I am sure would have been even more meaningful. Having her photos taken in war zones may look more romantic perhaps? Does not make sense to me however. The USA is not unique in this though. Has to be in human nature that we find it far more meaningful to travel abroad, rather than to travel our own countries and take a real close look at our own backyards, instead of having photos taken of war torn backyards of other countries all the time in order to show how good we are when we are contributing when we do.

True, but that's not the point I was making. I was making the point that the USA needs national health insurance and huge improvement to the system so that it doesn't look like a third world country, as in these photos.
Voodoocat
America already has healthcare for the poor and elderly: Medicare and Medicaid. One of the big problems seems to be that people that qualify for medicare or medicaid are not enrolling. Instead of re-inventing healthcare, why not focus on encouraging those who qualify for assistance to enroll for assistance?
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
America already has healthcare for the poor and elderly: Medicare and Medicaid. One of the big problems seems to be that people that qualify for medicare or medicaid are not enrolling. Instead of re-inventing healthcare, why not focus on encouraging those who qualify for assistance to enroll for assistance?
You tell me. Maybe even with enrollment, there are no medical facilities in their area. Maybe a lot of them don't qualify for some reason. But this situation has been this way for years, these people simply lack access to healthcare where they are, and there's no excuse for that. Why don't you read all the articles, find the answer to your question, and report back to us?
Voodoocat
handfleisch:
Quote:
You tell me. Maybe even with enrollment, there are no medical facilities in their area

Its not a problem with medical facilities. Some of the slides you linked to were from Wise County, Virginia. Wise County has a county health department that offers health care based on income, and three hospitals.

Link: http://www.wisecountychamber.org/medical_facilities.htm

Once again, this shows that while there are problems with the American healthcare system, we need to find intelligent ways to improve the system, not create a brand new system. I still believe that the first improvement should be to encourage eligable citizens to enroll in already existing programs.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
handfleisch:
Quote:
You tell me. Maybe even with enrollment, there are no medical facilities in their area

Its not a problem with medical facilities. Some of the slides you linked to were from Wise County, Virginia. Wise County has a county health department that offers health care based on income, and three hospitals.

Link: http://www.wisecountychamber.org/medical_facilities.htm

Once again, this shows that while there are problems with the American healthcare system, we need to find intelligent ways to improve the system, not create a brand new system. I still believe that the first improvement should be to encourage eligable citizens to enroll in already existing programs.


I doubt that you're right. Thousands of people at a time come and line up after dark outside of tents to get everything from their teeth pulled to surgery at these things. That doesn't sound like a case of people just not registering for programs that would provide these services for an affordable price or for free. I will do more research and I suggest that you do too.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Once again, this shows that while there are problems with the American healthcare system, we need to find intelligent ways to improve the system, not create a brand new system. I still believe that the first improvement should be to encourage eligable citizens to enroll in already existing programs.
This is excellent advice Voodoocat. The best yet. It is not the system that is the problem, as there is already one available, but the management of the system. Now imagine instead of partially available only for the poor and disabled, that this system is expanded for everyone, how unmanageable it would be by that time.

But your point is well taken and I think it has also been made by a few in the media (I can't think of where I saw it) that there are already some systems available that could be much better utilized and managed.
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
Because sooner or later that philosophy of "we're broke, so let's spend even more money" will catch up to us...


I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately our government, and this seems true for just about every administration I can think of, still clings to the concept of "look over there, it's a problem...let's throw money at it till it goes away". Now they are talking about budgets in the trillions?

Somebody is going to want their money one day and we are going to be screwed. Maybe we could open up a government theme park to raise money..."Six Flags Over the White House" sounds pretty cool. Wait...I think it already exists. Sad
handfleisch
Vrythramax wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Because sooner or later that philosophy of "we're broke, so let's spend even more money" will catch up to us...


I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately our government, and this seems true for just about every administration I can think of, still clings to the concept of "look over there, it's a problem...let's throw money at it till it goes away". Now they are talking about budgets in the trillions?

Somebody is going to want their money one day and we are going to be screwed. Maybe we could open up a government theme park to raise money..."Six Flags Over the White House" sounds pretty cool. Wait...I think it already exists. Sad


Disagree. To say the USA cannot afford what all other industrialized countries can afford is a bad joke.

We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!" Now negativity and want-to-failism is prevailing, spurred on by shills for the insurance company repeating talking points ad nauseum.
Vrythramax
handfleisch wrote:

Disagree. To say the USA cannot afford what all other industrialized countries can afford is a bad joke.

We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!" Now negativity and want-to-failism is prevailing, spurred on by shills for the insurance company repeating talking points ad nauseum.


Where did you read in my post that I said that? Try READING a post before posting a reply.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!"
I thought the winning attitude used to be that people in the United States could dream, and that they believed in their dreams. For example: "A dream is alive". Sort of in a micro way gives the big message of people who have dreams, and have energy and drive to go the million miles to realize them. Money is just a tool, and poor people can also dream and realize their dreams. For me people from the United States are generally much more than just about money. Although generally the dream does have the proverbial pot of gold at the end of it, while is is being pursued. For me it is a nation of dreamers and making those dreams happen is what makes it tick ...
handfleisch
Vrythramax wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Disagree. To say the USA cannot afford what all other industrialized countries can afford is a bad joke.

We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!" Now negativity and want-to-failism is prevailing, spurred on by shills for the insurance company repeating talking points ad nauseum.


Where did you read in my post that I said that? Try READING a post before posting a reply.


The context of your remarks is that creating a national health insurance (the subject of this thread) is just throwing money at a problem. If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood, but only because you erred in terms of ignoring the context of the discussion.

By the way, aren't you a moderator of this forum? Why did you allow this thread to be opened when there was already a thread on this exact subject? Here you say that this is grounds for closing a thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108738.html

Here is the other thread on the same subject http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107746-7.html
Vrythramax
handfleisch wrote:
The context of your remarks is that creating a national health insurance (the subject of this thread) is just throwing money at a problem. If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood, but only because you erred in terms of ignoring the context of the discussion.


What I said exactly was "Unfortunately our government, and this seems true for just about every administration I can think of, still clings to the concept of "look over there, it's a problem...let's throw money at it till it goes away", and it was inresponse to another post that I didn't need to try to read context into as it was clearly spelled out.


Quote:
By the way, aren't you a moderator of this forum? Why did you allow this thread to be opened when there was already a thread on this exact subject? Here you say that this is grounds for closing a thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108738.html

Here is the other thread on the same subject http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107746-7.html


Yes I am a Moderator here, amongst other things, and I can't stop anyone from creating a topic. If you READ those topics you cited one is about spending on fighter jets, and the other is a similar topic to this taking an opposing view.

Maybe YOU should read the post at http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-13011.html with particular attention to rule 2b.
handfleisch
Vrythramax wrote:

Yes I am a Moderator here, amongst other things, and I can't stop anyone from creating a topic. If you READ those topics you cited one is about spending on fighter jets, and the other is a similar topic to this taking an opposing view.


Wait, that makes no sense. Isn't this a forum for discussion and debate? Why does an opposing view get an entire different thread? That exactly what should be on the original thread, opposing views and debate.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
We used to have the attitude, "we're a rich country, CAN DO!"
I thought the winning attitude used to be that people in the United States could dream, and that they believed in their dreams. For example: "A dream is alive". Sort of in a micro way gives the big message of people who have dreams, and have energy and drive to go the million miles to realize them. Money is just a tool, and poor people can also dream and realize their dreams. For me people from the United States are generally much more than just about money. Although generally the dream does have the proverbial pot of gold at the end of it, while is is being pursued. For me it is a nation of dreamers and making those dreams happen is what makes it tick ...


Dreams are more easily achieved when China doesn't own your country Laughing
Bikerman
Well, as a scientifically inclined person I should point out that we have an excellent experimental possibility here.
Let's summarise the two positions;
1) Those who contend that the US system is fundamentally OK but just in need of some tweaks
2) Those who contend that it needs complete change with a nationalised insurance system.

Now, polling evidence tells us about the public perception of the issue. I agree that it is a rather fickle measure. How about some more empirical data?
Here's my proposal. The swine-flu pandemic is going to put severe strains on health systems throughout the world. Let's see how the US system compares with those of (say) Canada and the UK in its response to the situation.
There are some 'hard data' tests - number of deaths per x of population for example. There are also some 'softer' tests - public reaction in terms of threat, perception of risk etc.
The next 6-18 months should produce some very interesting data.......
handfleisch
Why wait 6-18 months for new empirical data, when we already have decades of empirical data to go on -- glaring facts like 16 % of Americans not having an insurance at all, almost 20% of working Americans without it, 20 percent of poor children don't have it, 22 percent of all Hispanic children don't have it, private insurance premiums have gone up four times faster than wages... All that from the top of my head, but the list could go on and on. According to the Institute of Medicine, more than 18,000 people die per year due to lack of health insurance, the equivalent of six 9/11 attacks per year. Imagine the thousands more people who suffer but don't die. The enormity of these stats shows that tweaking is not enough; we need to recognize this as the national emergency that it is, the national disaster that it is, and do something real.

Bikerman wrote:
Well, as a scientifically inclined person I should point out that we have an excellent experimental possibility here.
Let's summarise the two positions;
1) Those who contend that the US system is fundamentally OK but just in need of some tweaks
2) Those who contend that it needs complete change with a nationalised insurance system.

Now, polling evidence tells us about the public perception of the issue. I agree that it is a rather fickle measure. How about some more empirical data?
Here's my proposal. The swine-flu pandemic is going to put severe strains on health systems throughout the world. Let's see how the US system compares with those of (say) Canada and the UK in its response to the situation.
There are some 'hard data' tests - number of deaths per x of population for example. There are also some 'softer' tests - public reaction in terms of threat, perception of risk etc.
The next 6-18 months should produce some very interesting data.......
Bikerman
Well, as I've said, my stance is more the interested observer.

Certainly my own preference is for a nationally funded system of health insurance. As I've said many times, it is enormously popular in the UK, when people are asked specifically about how they wish health provision to be funded.
(If you want a considered essay on this, from a respectable source (The British Medical Journal) rather than a single opinion poll then Click Here)

My own politics are of the 'left' so naturally I support the NHS, but that support goes across the political spectrum here.
Vrythramax
handfleisch wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:

Yes I am a Moderator here, amongst other things, and I can't stop anyone from creating a topic. If you READ those topics you cited one is about spending on fighter jets, and the other is a similar topic to this taking an opposing view.


Wait, that makes no sense. Isn't this a forum for discussion and debate? Why does an opposing view get an entire different thread? That exactly what should be on the original thread, opposing views and debate.


it makes perfect sense if the 2 subjects would create so much digression...kind of like this, that they would end up being split off into 2 threads anyway. And yes, this is a forum for discussion and debate. I don't know about the other Staff Members, but I'm not going to troll the forums looking to lock topics that are similar to another one...I have plenty to do as it is Wink
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Here's my proposal. The swine-flu pandemic is going to put severe strains on health systems throughout the world. Let's see how the US system compares with those of (say) Canada and the UK in its response to the situation.
There are some 'hard data' tests - number of deaths per x of population for example. There are also some 'softer' tests - public reaction in terms of threat, perception of risk etc.
The next 6-18 months should produce some very interesting data.......
Isn't the swine-flu pandemic a public health issue? How could it then be a test for the health care system in the United States, as the public health system in the United States for infectious diseases has to be superior to any in the world. As far as I can see the problem in the United States is at the primary health care level, not public health care level.

http://www.cdc.gov/

This is the CDC Web page for swine flu:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Isn't the swine-flu pandemic a public health issue? How could it then be a test for the health care system in the United States, as the public health system in the United States for infectious diseases has to be superior to any in the world. As far as I can see the problem in the United States is at the primary health care level, not public health care level.
I don't really know what you mean. What is the distinction (if any) between 'public health care level' and 'primary health care level'?
Swine flu will infect anything up to 50% of a population. The health system - in terms of doctor appointments, hospital beds, emergency room facilities, stockpiles of vaccine/anti-virals and so on - will be severely tested.
I am proposing that the UK will do better for most measures than the US - in terms of mortality rates, provision of drugs and hospital beds & public distress/panic.
I think it is an excellent test.
Bannik
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Isn't the swine-flu pandemic a public health issue? How could it then be a test for the health care system in the United States, as the public health system in the United States for infectious diseases has to be superior to any in the world. As far as I can see the problem in the United States is at the primary health care level, not public health care level.
I don't really know what you mean. What is the distinction (if any) between 'public health care level' and 'primary health care level'?
Swine flu will infect anything up to 50% of a population. The health system - in terms of doctor appointments, hospital beds, emergency room facilities, stockpiles of vaccine/anti-virals and so on - will be severely tested.
I am proposing that the UK will do better for most measures than the US - in terms of mortality rates, provision of drugs and hospital beds & public distress/panic.
I think it is an excellent test.


oh UK will do amazingly well especially considering how dense and compact the population is, heck the TUBE will be a breeding ground.

i was just wondering if you dont have health insurance does that mean you wont get swine flu treatment?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Isn't the swine-flu pandemic a public health issue? How could it then be a test for the health care system in the United States, as the public health system in the United States for infectious diseases has to be superior to any in the world. As far as I can see the problem in the United States is at the primary health care level, not public health care level.
I don't really know what you mean. What is the distinction (if any) between 'public health care level' and 'primary health care level'?
Swine flu will infect anything up to 50% of a population. The health system - in terms of doctor appointments, hospital beds, emergency room facilities, stockpiles of vaccine/anti-virals and so on - will be severely tested.
I am proposing that the UK will do better for most measures than the US - in terms of mortality rates, provision of drugs and hospital beds & public distress/panic.
I think it is an excellent test.
Public Health care is usually supported by Government in a big way. Almost like emergency health care in certain ways. Primary health care is the one that has everyone worried, as people who need slightly less than emergency care, but still medical care, cannot afford to see doctors when they do not have health insurance. There is usually Big Bucks behind Public Health care, and if there is an emergency some of this gets written off, so in effect the current system cannot be tested by an emergency public health subject. You can only really compare the public health and emergency care capabilities from one country to another when you use the swine flu as an example. The real nitty gritty health care for day to day mainstay medical issues would be missed out in the comparison as well.
handfleisch
Vrythramax wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:

Yes I am a Moderator here, amongst other things, and I can't stop anyone from creating a topic. If you READ those topics you cited one is about spending on fighter jets, and the other is a similar topic to this taking an opposing view.


Wait, that makes no sense. Isn't this a forum for discussion and debate? Why does an opposing view get an entire different thread? That exactly what should be on the original thread, opposing views and debate.


it makes perfect sense if the 2 subjects would create so much digression...kind of like this, that they would end up being split off into 2 threads anyway. And yes, this is a forum for discussion and debate. I don't know about the other Staff Members, but I'm not going to troll the forums looking to lock topics that are similar to another one...I have plenty to do as it is ;)


So is it this:

Quote:
Yes I am a Moderator here, amongst other things, and I can't stop anyone from creating a topic.


or this

Quote:
This topic was touched on earlier in this same forum here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-903854.html#903854 by ocalhoun.

I'll close this thread (the other existed first) if I see the conversations starting to go along the same lines. Posting in both would be akin to simply spamming for points.


or back to this
Quote:

it makes perfect sense if the 2 subjects would create so much digression...kind of like this, that they would end up being split off into 2 threads anyway.


You said you would close a thread if they "went along the same lines". This thread is the exact same lines as the other thread, which like this one includes both pro and con arguments for health insurance. Unless, as you say, this thread is only for the con arguments, in which case all the pro posts are off topic?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Why does an opposing view get an entire different thread?

Why not?

How about responding to the actual argument, instead of trying to get the thread shut down, eh?
If you've got a problem with it PM a mod, or report it.
Related topics
Mexican president again attacks U.S. plans to build border f
“Neo-Con”: not “Neo-Conservative” but “Neo-Contradictionist”
Two-Thirds of young Americans are geographically inept
Al Gore, Global Warming and The American Healthcare System
Anyone seen the ten things Americans want but can't have?
Americans Only: Will You Vote For Clinton Anyway?
Castro Resigns
Patriot act sees Americans abused.
Health care pharmacy
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Obama's first 6 months, a list of accomplishments
Obama down in polls
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
The Anti-theism Network
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.