Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 9 Badge!

First, a man died for what he believed in. That omission doesn't really do him justice. He was uninsured, his choice, and good people came through for him. As though standing up for those beliefs is a tragedy.

His opinion is *deceptive. It suggests a tragedy. This is lying through deception. God bless Kent Snyder, who this guy takes a shit on.

*Omission. Like @aurens said, not putting the whole context was awfully convenient. "He (Kent Synder) would have died, to be fair, in a church." Excuse me? Did he watch the debate? Ron Paul said nothing of the sort. This is the equal of conservatives spouting off their rhetoric of Death Panels; in every way shape and form. Since you just watched my video, you should darn well know that this guy is lying through his teeth. RON PAUL NOTED THAT HE NEVER TURNED AWAY ANYONE AS A PHYSICIAN, AND HE EXPECTS SOCIETY TO DO THE SAME. (I capitalize that because I feel strongly about it. Not because I am yelling at you.) Hell, that is part of the oaths doctors must swear to.

"Pay your bills upfront," at 3:21?! Wtf does that have to do with anything? It's called debt, if you can't afford it right away. Or is that not an option? And, debt can always be negotiated by the hospitals anyways. *Deceptive

"I hope all that money was raised." Really? You mean you have no fucking clue? Honestly? You just pop off at the mouth like Rush Lim-fat?

You may feel these points invalid, but then that isn't really an option. Just because he tells *you the truth, doesn't mean he isn't spouting out shit the rest of us. There is a saying in the courts, "The truth (Meaning, don't lie,) the Whole Truth (Don't omit,) and nothing but the truth (Don't add details that have nothing to do with the case.)

I am not writing this to debate these points so please don't. I respect you the same way. Also, I would like to note when you were disingenuous with no "articulation" when you called my video a near dupe of another. One vid, which you liked, made it seem like Ron Paul was a bastard that wants people to die (Just like this guy.) My video explained his context further and put him in a much better light, which was the opposite of the other video.

I voted for this video only to point out what a liar this guy is--I don't wish to regret it.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

That. Was. Fucking. Great.

I would never have been able to articulate that even if I tried. But let me ask this--isn't gross hyperbole what Fox News does daily? And yet they are called out daily? To do anything besides that here is hypocritical. "Oh, but they know the omissions they make are lies." And this guy doesn't?

I wish we could promote comments... I would here.

>> ^aurens:

"If it was up to Ron Paul, Mr. Snyder would have died ... in a church. On the floor of the church. I suspect it would have been significantly more painful than dying in a hospital for two months."
A lie? Yes, in a way. But probably better categorized as gross hyperbole.
The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.
Ron Paul envisions a completely different form of government, and by extension, a completely different form of society. It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it would not work unless people became less accustomed to the government handling so many facets of their personal lives. As with many of his positions, his ideas about health care would necessitate a more informed body of citizens, a more socially conscious society, and more empathetic neighbors.
To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions. The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails.
In any event, speaking of lies of omission, why not take the opportunity to remind everyone of one of the greatest scenes in the history of television: http://videosift.com/video/The-First-Duty.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

If everyone was insured it would still be this guy's money that would pay the bill. Isn't that how insurance works? Of course, I realize he has to pay more now, he's probably paying for insurance and on top of that taxes that are used to pay for the uninsured, but in the end if his point is that he should never have to pay for anyone else then I'm not sure what he's talking about.

It's so weird, I'm pretty proud of paying taxes. I like to think of the fact that some percentage of what I pay goes to free education and free health care so the society around me can go on and everyone else can benefit the way I've benefited. I feel like I owe a huge debt that I'm paying off and hopefully I can contribute more than I received. Don't know how this part of the comment fits in here, I'm just throwing it out randomly...

"If it was up to Ron Paul, Mr. Snyder would have died ... in a church. On the floor of the church. I suspect it would have been significantly more painful than dying in a hospital for two months."

A lie? Yes, in a way. But probably better categorized as gross hyperbole.

The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.

Ron Paul envisions a completely different form of government, and by extension, a completely different form of society. It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it would not work unless people became less accustomed to the government handling so many facets of their personal lives. As with many of his positions, his ideas about health care would necessitate a more informed body of citizens, a more socially conscious society, and more empathetic neighbors.

To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions. The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails.

In any event, speaking of lies of omission, why not take the opportunity to remind everyone of one of the greatest scenes in the history of television: http://videosift.com/video/The-First-Duty.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
lies through omission, a lot of omission.

Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.
Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?
Maybe what you're looking for is controversy?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

lies through omission, a lot of omission.


Took that channel off. You wanna slap lies on it, at least articulate what the lie is.

Was there a salient, knowable detail he left out that would have repudiated what he said? If so, what was it? And do you have a source to back it up?

Maybe what you're looking for is *controversy?

>> ^artician:

Campaign manager for his first presidential election? In 1988? 2008 was Paul's second run for the whitehouse.


He ran as a libertarian. But since we have a two-party system, he went electable yet principled (To his own ideas of course.)

Texas has open primaries. I've decided if I might actually get off my ass and vote for Paul this year, even though I think voting is completely pointless and stupid. But... I might feel like a vote for Paul is a way for me to register my dissatisfaction with the corporately owned toads on the rest of the ballot. I haven't decided.

i'm also making up a ton of campaign signs that say "nobody for president 2012". everyone should do the same. i want to see these fuckers everywhere.

btw, don't let the hype about perry fool you, everyone in texas FUCKING HATES HIM. he's the worst governor in history, and he's only in power because he is entirely funded bt big oil and gas and the evangelicals who've silently taken over all of our local elections in the last decade or so. seriously, i have no idea how he actually pulled off winning the R gubernatorial primary, other than voting is totally rigged. i do not know one single person who approves of him. luckily, the governor of texas doesn't actually have a whole lot of power. id say the primary is totally between him and romney. and id also say romney actually stands a chance against obama (because EVERYONE HATES rick perry). but then again, id also say it doesnt really matter who wins because theyre just 2 public faces of the same corporately owned and minted coin. theyre going to talk about how wonderful the economy in texas is! its kind of bullshit. we might have more jobs readily available than most states, but they're minimum wage jobs and rent (not property values, rental values) is skyrocketing because everyone is moving here rapidly. soooo you can't afford to rent an apartment with your fancy new low wage job so you have to come live on my couch for a while. we also have a regressive taxation system and a subsequent $27 billion budget gap, which we're making old people and poor people and young people pay for. oh and we have worse air quality than all the other 49 states AND puerto rico... AND we have the most uninsured people... and possibly one of the fastest growing drop out and teenage pregnancy rates... oooh and we teach our kids a batshit evangelical version of history, math and science. we also refuse to teach our kids about sex. so when they go off to college they have no idea how condoms work and think if you have unprotected sex you need to drink bleach afterwards.

also, all of the above horrible things i've said about texas..... all happened under consecutive bush-perry leadership.

everyone in texas mourns the death of ann richards on a daily basis. we're thinking of digging her corpse up and making it run for office next election.

>> ^blankfist:

When's the last time you've ever heard a doctor or nurse give you dollar amount for your visit? Not often, because all we care about is the copay, right?


Well I think that's part of it. But I know why they don't give a dollar amount. It's because every person on the planet could have insurance but through different companies, and they all have different "agreed" payments for procedures. I get a kick out of getting a test that I was thinking "oh this is probably worth about 50 dollars worth of someone's time", and seeing that it's billed at about 120, but then insurance sets aside 60 of it, pays 20 and I end up paying 40. Sure they SAVED you 80 dollars on the test cost, but that test wouldn't cost 120 if they didn't negotiate like they do.

I worked for a billing agency for a few months a number of years ago, and I overhead one of the doctors talking to head of the billing department on a job site (I was doing IT work). The head guy told the doctor that they had to pick from 5-6 categories for what they agree to take for payment on procedures, they advised the doctor to take the highest payout. Doctor balked at the idea of charging so much for procedures that were more in line with the first or second column of like 5-6. Head guy tells the doctor that the negotiation only takes place every 5 years or so, so what it may cost now won't be what it costs in 3 years. So you have to take the higher rates unless you want to pay part of every persons procedure in 3 years. And also with this agreement, the doctor can't make patients any discounts unless they also offer those same discounts to the insurance companies. Told the doctor to offer people (uninsured or not choosing to use insurance) a discount if they paid same day, because insurance companies can't pay same day. This was a small and as far as I know unaffiliated practice in a mostly rural area....practice was attached in a seperated section of their house.

And it's pretty obvious how bullshit all of it is when you see it in practice....badmouthing it as someone whose trying to make a living at it probably means you'll be out of business due to pissing someone off who makes payments or losing out on a slew of customers.

so, i have 4 jobs and 2 kids and grad school. i have been a recreational smoker for years, just smoking maybe once every few months when i had a babysitter and was hanging out with my friends... but now i use it to treat the stress and anxiety that goes along with trying to do 9 things at once all the fucking time. i was a huge ball of irritable stress, a few weeks ago when i was getting pissed because my curtains weren't laying right and i couldn't stop my brain from running through the list of things i had to do all night, i decided it was time to do something about all this stress. i now smoke pot daily, taking a few hits off a joint i keep hidden in my car in between clients. at 29 i know how to regulate myself, i know how many hits i need to take to just calm down and get focused vs. how many hits i have to take to get stoned. i never get stoned, i just chill the fuck out and am able to focus. i'm not lazy, my kids are not in danger, my work is not impaired, my clients dont even know i just smoked a joint when i show up.

the alternative was going to do the doctor and getting prescription anxiety medication. which i'm waaay more likely to abuse and either has horrible side effects or leaves me impaired for most of the day. and costs me a ton of money, as i'm uninsured.

i don't think the continued prohibition of pot has its roots in racism anymore as much as it is about maintaining profits for the pharmaceutical industry. i suspect amex is in bed with some pharmaceutical giants somehow, im not going to do the research to prove it, because i have to go to work now, but i'm going to speculate thats whats up.

also, the people who live on my couch right now have started a guerilla grow movement around my small, right wing, texas town. and i for one, think its wonderful.

>> ^My_design:

This is the exact problem with thinking today, we don't allow kids to grow up. We have mothers calling in to their child's employer because he dared to give a negative review. We have employees that feel they are entitled to the same pay rate as their manager because they work 40 hours a week. Loving parents protecting their child?! Your child is 27! He/she isn't a child they're an adult! If they have a handicap that prevents them from being able to work and provide for themselves then they should be able to retain coverage. Outside of that the best and only reason I could see paying $3600 a year per enrolled "Adult/Child" would be if the current uninsured medical expenses for 19-27 year olds drastically outweighed the costs for the new program. But I haven't seen any statistics relating to that. Yes 30% of 19-27 year old adults do not have insurance. But how much is that fact costing us each year and how much would it cost us each year if we insured each and every one of them?
The $3600 is a government estimate for 2013, and since the government does their estimating with chickens pecking at player pianos I sincerely doubt the costs will be in line.
If the premiums are being paid anyway why don't the parents just pay for their kids insurance?
I fully expect that if Obamacare goes into effect that I will lose my employer provided insurance. If by some act of God I do not lose my coverage then I fully expect that my rates will drastically increase and my family coverage plan will become even more expensive as people load on their precious 22 year old "kids" to the program. So this means that my family will pay even more for my daughters insurance because someone else can't put a foot of common sense up their kids ass.
>> ^bareboards2:
You do understand that insurance premiums are being paid, don't you?
This isn't a freebie giveaway. It is allowing loving parents to protect their children.
What the hell is wrong with you?

>> ^My_design:
Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.




You think allowing family members to be covered by your health insurance is coddling?? Are you also expecting families to kick their college graduates out of the house upon graduation? How about giving them a few years to find a good job with benefits before you disown them? Seems a bit more humane. Those jobs aren't as easy to find as they used to be.

You also said you expect to lose your coverage due to "Obamacare". Really? I'd love to hear how you figure that will happen.

This is the exact problem with thinking today, we don't allow kids to grow up. We have mothers calling in to their child's employer because he dared to give a negative review. We have employees that feel they are entitled to the same pay rate as their manager because they work 40 hours a week. Loving parents protecting their child?! Your child is 27! He/she isn't a child they're an adult! If they have a handicap that prevents them from being able to work and provide for themselves then they should be able to retain coverage. Outside of that the best and only reason I could see paying $3600 a year per enrolled "Adult/Child" would be if the current uninsured medical expenses for 19-27 year olds drastically outweighed the costs for the new program. But I haven't seen any statistics relating to that. Yes 30% of 19-27 year old adults do not have insurance. But how much is that fact costing us each year and how much would it cost us each year if we insured each and every one of them?
The $3600 is a government estimate for 2013, and since the government does their estimating with chickens pecking at player pianos I sincerely doubt the costs will be in line.

If the premiums are being paid anyway why don't the parents just pay for their kids insurance?
I fully expect that if Obamacare goes into effect that I will lose my employer provided insurance. If by some act of God I do not lose my coverage then I fully expect that my rates will drastically increase and my family coverage plan will become even more expensive as people load on their precious 22 year old "kids" to the program. So this means that my family will pay even more for my daughters insurance because someone else can't put a foot of common sense up their kids ass.

>> ^bareboards2:

You do understand that insurance premiums are being paid, don't you?
This isn't a freebie giveaway. It is allowing loving parents to protect their children.
What the hell is wrong with you?

>> ^My_design:
Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.

@bmacs27
You haven't done enough homework son, many many countries offer government run healthcare for the majority of citizens, and the percentage of GPD they spend on healthcare is far lower than America's. The cost in America is out of control because of the insurance companies and other factors. You also assume I support a particular party.

Here are a couple of facts for you
- there are currently around 50 million uninsured in America
- the cost of healthcare in America (by GDP) is the highest in the world (and is rising)

The current system doesn't work, unless you're above a certain level of income where you can afford the premiums for a good insurance plan. As already stated, 50 million people fall below this line for income or other reasons. Your argument is based on the assumption that taxes will need to go up to cover a government plan - which is a complete logic fail because the overall expenditure on HC will go down per person.

@MaxWilder Ahh I see - so you support a government run plan, but lack a spine when it comes to actually expecting anything from congress/the senate.

@bareboards2 Opinion that at least for me is based on what works in countries other than America. The only thing stopping a government plan being introduced there is the plutocracy in place, the problem with the people you talk about exists, but the vocal part of it comes from the top down.