Oracion

Lol Meh, he called you a lady.

Also, I fully support this. I dont like the idea of some punk banning me from a server I belong to. Does this immunity only cover Banning or does it also cover Kick, Mute, Slay, etc...?

If you have immunity, it's to any command. Period. Doesn't matter if it's guns, health or cash, it won't affect you unless that persons 'rank', per say, is equal to yours.

I believe Mario said he has four stages up currently, but it's basically reg admin vs Manager/DL admin.

Heh, that was the point. Its completely off topic of the issue, but anyone can bring it up and get people to listen to it. Politics boils down to what you can get through the media and if you can convince people that theres a possibility of it happening. As far as Obama goes, nothing really ever changes in this country. We switch leaders every four to eight years as it is, and sure there are slight differences in domestic and foreign policy.. but very few things really ever change the outlook of the public as a whole. There are a few exceptions like slavery and discrimination law, but even things like the anti-trust acts have loopholes in them that people work through. I guess everything has to start small somewhere though. Good luck to him getting something worthwhile passed that gets the ball rolling in a positive direction of some sense.

edit: Not saying you listened to or agreed with it, but there are so many forums now for discussion that people get their news from everywhere. Constituents hear their news from everywhere and rip the shit out of their delegates when they have no idea what they're talking about. Delegates want to get re-elected, and thats what matters in their voting (for most of them.)

Amen to most of this post. We elect people to hope they fuck up the least, and do something for people.

Reason why I voted for Obama is because of this health care, and if something doesn't get fixed, I'll definately be disappointed. IMO, it beats McCain, because he was scaring me with the possibility of going after Iran and the like.

Well, I was going to ban him for being an idiot. He did this for three rounds where he'd shoot someone when he was baiting, or just do it for no fucking reason.

I'd say at the least, give him a day ban.

Ok back from school and back to the discussion that has consumed me 

And let me make an opening statement to Oracion, man I have TREMENDEIOUS respect for you!!! You have supplied me with an argument supported by facts that even Chosen has noticed. You are a mature individual that has taken a mature subject and kept it mature. (And I am assuming that you have actually read most maybe everything that I have posted) I am just arguing my viewpoint from my republican side and I want no hard feelings between you and this has been an up most pleasure debating with you my good sir!!!!

Ok now back to your point that you have stated

You noticed how much large, private, company CEO’s have made large amounts of money. Is this right? Yes I believe that it is right that they have. These people are running a business, and businesses strive on making profit. Should these CEO’s make this much profit however? Well for large companies minus the outliers like Cigna and Atena, who I’m sure provide more to large business than WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, and Humana combined, range between 2 and 5 million dollars a year. “A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid, on average, $10.4 million in total compensation in 2008” (http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/) Health Care CEO’s in retrospect, come no were close to that. Why not look at large gas companies or other companies and Control those if the annual salary of CEO’s to be reduced? I mean health care isn’t a necessity per say, but you take your chances. And I can also say that their money isn’t going untaxed I was looking at Forbes for Atena and their profit margins and all the numbers are before taxed so keep that in mind as well.

And to the 2nd part of that about being dropped from a plan or having to pay more for cretin “pre existing conditions.” Well let’s stay with the automotive analogy about auto insurance. As a new driver, most teenagers pay incredible amount of money more just to be insured. Why is this? Because the lack of experience, as well as the liability that this person has, as well as getting a DUI (Driving Under the Influence should be common knowledge but for some isn’t so there is what DUI stands for) or too many tickets, an insurance company can drop your policy because you are too much of a liability. (I know a lot about auto insurance my mom has worked for State Farm for 21 years) Same as health care, for me (If it was my business) I don’t want to cover someone that has preexisting conditions (Liability Factor), but same with people who are into extreme life styles. I don’t want to cover them and if I do elect to cover them I am going to charge them a Higher Premium, and if they are visiting the ER every three months and getting an MRI because they are worried about having a concussion I no longer want to cover them because they are too much of a Liability and costing my company too much money. And from a business that is trying to produce revenue that’s bad.

I’m sure that I’m missing parts from your argument and if so mention them. If you want me to find the Liability factors for driving and teens and people with DUI’s I will find it, but I’m assuming that it is common knowledge the more tickets you get or accidents you are in the higher your insurance rates will be and sooner or later you will be dropped from your policy. And I mean come on you have to be approved by a company for Auto Insurance.

First off, thanks for that. It's good to debate so long as we keep a leveled head.

Second off, I have no issue with bonuses and profit. I get that it's part of being a CEO and stuff. From my standpoint though, it's just sickening at the numbers, especially at this point in the economy when bonuses are being paid off at records, and people are getting laid off. And when I'm seeing profits shoot through the roof, and insurance companies are arguing over what is worth spending on or not when people are paying them to keep them healthy when they need it, then it starts becoming very, very sketchy.

To the driving analogy, point well made, but at the same time why are those that are on the plan with no real health issues, and no current conditions having to front the same money as everyone else, and take the price raises as they come? I'm 21 currently, and I have no issues and in good health, but god forbid something happens to me once, they'll easily jack up my rates and the like and keep them there because of an accident that happens.

Now obviously, if someone is going often with no real need to outside of being paranoid, then I can understand charging a bit more, but when I talk about issues with insurance, I'm more fixated on people getting dicked solely due to one accident/needed surgery where it happens, the bill comes, then the insurance deems it worthy or not of coverage. There's no reason they SHOULDN'T cover you for stuff when you need it, and even then if you do have issues, there isn't any real reason you should be denied if you honestly need the coverage so you can live.

Edit: I forgot to add: I'm all for getting rid of Reid and Pelosi cause I honestly haven't seen them do a goddamn thing myself. Reid acts like a bitch, and Pelosi just doesn't really fit into the whole group that we Dems are looking for.

Back to your response, it's simple supply and demand plus a massive profit margin.

Supply and Demand: Self Explanatory

This may come as a shock, but profit isn't made by curing you instantly. It's made by taking the long road to recovery.

Example: AIDS, treating it is more profitable than curing it. Hell, in the private sector if you stub your toe a doc is going to run 4 sets of tests just to bill your insurance.

With government healthcare there isn't a hidden agenda (well, there shouldn't be).

Trust me, I know that long term care = more profits. But what's also sickening is just general surgery costs. Like I said earlier, my dad was billed 33k for a half day surgery. Granted, Medicare and his insurance DID help (Was more medicare), but at the same time, you can't help but wonder how someone without insurance is supposed to pay off that amount. Going by my last post, if costs ARE reduced, that means that strain on Medicare will also be reduced, because they won't have to pay off so much for these insane bills.

Also, if a doctor told me to go get tests done for a minor injury I did on myself, I'd probably tell him to fuck off and let my toe heal.

Ok I will try and digest this by each point of your concern that you have in each point of concern.

Well one problem that I see with requiring HC by law is sometimes an unnecessary expense that some families shouldn’t have to pay if they elect not to. It comes down to a responsibility issue more or less. People buy car insurance to protect them selves. They buy it incase they get in an accident, if you elect not to have it, you take the responsibilities of covering the cost out of pocket at your own risk. I know that many laws are not enforced by the government, but many people who wont want to pay the prices that will be offered from private IC will elect the less expensive non-profit governmental HC system.

Well, auto insurance is required by 47/50 states (I'm in one that doesn't require it, go figure, Florida) but like I said before, lots is not enforced. I'm not really for it being law, per say, but I'm all for those that are wanting it to go through the system to prove they are eligible, and a citizen. This can't just be a sign up and go thing. Having HC is more of a thing for the better good of people, mostly because one accident that happens to you, whether or not it is your fault, shouldn't cost you to have a debt for years to come. Link below shows the requirements for auto insurance just for GP reasons.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/minimum-coverage-levels.html

And with Government funded programs I would much rather see more laws that are enriched in Americas school systems and education than a public market for National HC. The government I feel should move the responsibility of education from a state level to a national level. Doing this will lead in a smarter America and move us up on the global ranking of education. A smarter American youth will lead to a better future, and more prospecting jobs around the world for them. Don’t you think maybe putting more money in systems like this and inner city school systems that get their funding from property taxes would be better than a National healthcare? And if these kids are getting better educations, that will lead into more technological advances in the medical field, increasing revenue for America and better job placement that offer reasonable HC to the people.

http://educationtaxcredits.com/2008/10/where-does-american-public-education.html

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

I will repost more when Home from school. I have 25 min till my next class and don’t have enough time find supporting arguments.

The point on schooling is debatable. I'm assuming this is an across-the-board when you say schooling, as in elementary to college level schooling. In which case, I'm for getting more materials for schools for the kids, but when it comes down to people doing more for school outside of high school, that's purely their choice, and it can't really be altered unless they wish to pursue more out of it.

As to jobs, if we got rid of these oversea jobs that are taking ones from middle/lower class workers, that would help re-establish part of our economy that is getting shipped overseas - a very sad movement of our country IMO. I get it helps people, but we need to help ourselves first, rather than have people ship jobs so they can profit off of cheap labor. I'm sure you've seen profits for many companies, and it's sickening at what they get.

In the scheme of things though, fixing costs for health care in turn may help everyone in general. If costs reduce, that means more money in pocket for everyone to use how they wish, which gets cycled into the economy. Costs reduced also lowers costs for seniors, which means less strain on SS/Medicare/Medicade. Assuming it were to reduce drugs/visits/surgeries it would come full circle and reduce the strain on many people. The issue is to see how that would work out if the gov. can work a deal with it's own plan.

Before I sing off I do want to know if these Illegal Aliens don’t get HC which Obama say’s they won’t get (which I agree they shouldn’t have access to it I just don’t think that this would be a reality) Who will take over the responsibilities of paying for their bills, because for some reason I doubt that they make enough money to afford the bills. Do we deport them back to their country and let them deal with the problem?

Before I continue this point, I'm basing my answer on the assumption this is going to be a public option.

With that in mind, I'm assuming it would still be paid like normal: No refusal, but they get what they need, and they go. It's a crap system since they profit off our taxes, and basically get away scott free. Ideally, it'd be nice if that got billed to the country in general, but that's not going to happen, but refusing them is also quite extreme.

I guess you could say for the 'what would happen to illegals' would be nothing at all. I unfortunately think it'll just stay the same.

Gators are wayyyyyyyyyy to overrated. they arent that good. tim tebow sucks. he cant throw. once hes in nfl hes no use. mecoy is way better then tebow.

Agreed on the overrated part, but Tebow does pull his weight IMO.

Though I don't quite think they're showing how good they are when they basically get all these warm-up teams for the first few weeks.

Well, so long as they don't play Appalachian again, I'm sure they're good.

Though, I wouldn't mind them getting back to the glory they had before. They were damned good and put up a good fight against Ohio and other teams.

Whatever you smoke or drink doesn't contribute to your failure, it's what your drive is that really contributes to it. If you drink everyday, but you're still a successful student, does that mean drinking was good for you during that time? It doesn't do anything for you, unless you let it take a hold of you as your only source of pleasure, or getaway from something. Same with weed/smoking/anything else. If you let it control you and take you away from what should be done, it's still your own fault in the end.

Outside that, I'd prefer someone hitting a bong rather than a pack of cigs in a day/week.

I also think that it’s funny that I have supplied you with the outline of the speech, my interpretation of the speech, and also links from where I’m getting my information, and arising to my conclusions. Whereas, you have yet to supply ANY evidence of your own to prove me wrong Oracion. You want to prove me wrong? Then don’t tell me to find it in the bill where it says it. Give me your facts and do research for yourself (Also Site where you are getting this because I did as well). So unless you can do research for you self I believe that the conversation in “null.â€

Okay, whatever buddy. I was asking for something simple, apparently not. Lets move on and I'll post stuff that's kinda what I was looking for in discussion, not little kiddie slaps on the wrist for asking something.

A general question to ask about 'requiring health care by law', is why would this be bad in a way? Technically, there are many things required by law, including as Chosen said about auto insurance, but what exactly is wrong with things being government funded? It happens with many things whether on a state and/or national level, and it varies with different services that are already provided to us, or are funded by said government for our better being.

http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/funding-programs/

That's where I found said funding that comes from government. Like I said, what is wrong with government providing a possible (yes, possible since the public option will unfortunately not be in, or watered down) solution that will put the companies on a more competitive level, and possibly provide us with care that would be affordable for many who can't pay for what is out there now? I don't get how that is socialism if it's a choice for someone to make, and it's not the be-all-end-all of what you have to choose. If you can, I'd like to hear why this would be a move toward socialism (which, to me doesn't seem like it at all), and not a general 'business', if you will for those less fortunate and wish to buy their health care.

As to illegals, I got this clip from the whole thing, mostly because it's the only thing that touches on illegals/immigrants in the country.

‘‘(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual who is a non resident alien.

The thing is, what is subsection a? Fuck if I know, damned bill doesn't have a subsection in the area that I can see that clarifies this, but essentially it does state that no illegals shall be covered. This is probably why it would be required by law, since it may be like a 'sign up' in a way, so that those that are here legitly prove they have the citizenship before they can receive care. Works for me if there is a system to prove legal rights.

For the record, not everything is enforced properly, but that doesn't stop lots of people. Look what happened on Wall Street.

Moving on to the 5% of Americans. I'm not sure if this means overall, or those that are uninsured in the 37 million stat. If it is overall, obviously this could be an issue when it comes to money, but at the same time an effect could domino to other companies which will require them to try to match the plan, which in turn may reduce overall costs of everything. But what would also help is actually putting profits to use and putting a good chunk in pockets for bonuses.

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/05/are-health-insurers-making-too-much-money/

Those two sites give an insight to profits made in 2008, and payoffs to the CEO's of the time. That's outrageous that there is so much profit, but yet there are claims being denied constantly based on issues that are one time things, or something that should be covered, but some think are 'too risky'. Hell, if you're getting beaten up in an abusive relationship, it's apparently a 'pre-existing condition' which means you can't be covered. The fuck kind of logic is that coming from companies? They can get everything they want, but if you're getting abused, you either pay more rates, or can't get covered due to it.

http://i.abcnews.com/GMA/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=4038257&page=1

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:50NLXutYFdoJ:www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Womens-Health-Weekly/1995-03-20/1425373WW.html+%E2%80%9CAmong+the+companies+that+deny+or+have+canceled+coverage+to+battered+women+are+Nationwide,+Allstate,+State+Farm,+Aetna,+Metropolitan+Life,+The+Equitable+Companies,+First+Colony+Life,+The+Prudential+and+the+Principal+Financial+Group,+according+to+a+congressional+survey,+investigations+by+women%27s+groups,+and+written+or+verbal+statements+to+the+Globe+by+the+firms+themselves.%E2%80%9D&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Sorry for the long links btw.

It's stuff like this thought that makes me wonder why a change for a possible option would be the worse thing in the world, when the general idea is to help people out the best we can. If they are cutting anything in the medical field, I would hope it's just costs, not the actual care. Cutting the costs in the long run would not only help people in general, but it would take strain off the Social Security and Medicare time bombs that are on a track to failure currently with the rising number of people needing it.

So I hope whatever does come up next is a good change to the bill, or a whole new plan, but something does need to be fixed. There is no reason why someone should have to pay a bill so huge for something that may be minor, or be denied coverage due to previous issues, or 'experimental' issues. It just all blows my mind.

I called it....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32858805/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?gt1=43001

Well, I could have told you that was coming as well.

I'm kinda surprised a few are crossing lines on that issue too. I woulda thought it'd be Dems v Repubs, no exceptions, but I guess crossing over lines does happen, as rare as it is nowadays.

Lolwutspeaksquared.

Okay, first off, throwing out insults is the first sign of losing debate. I simply asked you to go in the bill and point out some things, that's all. I understand you linked to the speeches, I get that, but I also want you to show me in the bill where that is said too.

Reason I'm ASKING this (you know, for friendly debate) is because lots of BS has been talked about it, but called out, namely the 'death panels' out there, which isn't in the bill at all as is, but rather an interpretation of what someone read it as, then put out as a talking point.

So, for the last time, can you find those points that you made in the bill so we can discuss them as they are in the actual bill? I'm not doubting what was said in the speech either, so stop assuming things, I'm simply asking to see where they are, since what you have said are talking points going around on the sites and media currently.

And if you go off on a tangent again and insult me because I'm asking a small favor, then I'll assume this debate we can have is null, since then it's just a yelling contest.

lolwutspeak

Okay, first off, I didn't claim I read it all. I asked you to point out where those four points of yours were so that I could read them. Thanks for assuming things.

Read better next time, and give me the pages/sections/whatever they are on so we can discuss them, not talking points that YOU could have very well made up. Simple request.

I mean I would love you to prove me wrong but I doubt that you can. Get off Fanisity Island and come to reality if you really think this is a plausible thing to do.

Actually, many things have been disproved about what's been talked about in the bill. Everything isn't what everyone wants, that's common sense to know, but you have to think about this whole bill in the scheme of things.

But I do have a challenge for you, since I hear the same thing, but no real proof, panther.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Go in there and find me those four points you just talked about. I can believe the 'required by law' one, but I want to read it over just in case. Outside that, find where those other points of yours are. I really doubt that illegal immigrants are being covered, cause that just sounds like a talking point, just like this Marxist/Socialism talk going around.

Im pretty sure they pay out of pocket

They do pay out of pocket a bit for the travel funds, but it's not the complete cost of the whole trip/surgery.

Thing 1. killed RamenBo1 (K-Mart!) with m4a1.

Thing 1. killed one with m4a1.

*DEAD* RamenBo1 (K-Mart!) : hey synyster

Thing 1. killed sGr | blob with m4a1.

Thing 1. killed c with m4a1.

sGr | vaccine : funny was votebanning everyone

all t's : can i have hp?

*SPEC* sG | Oracion [L1|A] : !slay thing

Thing 1. suicided.

[sM] Slayed Thing 1..

Thing 1.; [sTEAM_0:1:18963973] has disconnected from the server.

MWM | Grovile444 : OW

Less murderous as the last one, but still. Not tolerated. Requesting at least a day/two day ban.

dave agia killed sGr | vaccine with m4a1.

dave agia killed ˚аяіѕц˚»яаνе« with m4a1.

all t's : i was freeshot

dave agia killed sG | Phoenix [L5] with m4a1.

dave agia killed c with m4a1.

dave agia killed Ganja Man with m4a1.

dave agia killed one with m4a1.

dave agia killed all t's with m4a1.

dave agia killed KoolKrazy[ON SPIKE!|GSP|man up] with m4a1.

dave agia killed sG | Karma [L1|A] with m4a1.

dave agia killed ūĢ|๖ۣۜڲïlἕหtkïttý with m4a1.

sG | Napo0do [L4|A] : !slay dave

dave agia suicided.

[sM] sG | Napo0do [L4|A]: Slayed dave agia.

*DEAD* ˚аяіѕц˚»яаνе« : WTF

*SPEC* sG | Oracion [L1|A] : !slay dave

[sM] This command can only be used on alive players.

*DEAD* Awptimus. : i have no sound so dont talk on the mic if you need me

sG | Mitch. [L1|A] : !slay dave

dave agia; [sTEAM_0:1:22136936] has disconnected from the server.

Says it all. Left before we could get him. Requesting longer/perma ban.

Not a fan cause the bandwagon fans killed it with their idiocy here. I give them props for being good though.

I just don't get why they're playing these non-seed teams to start. They get good scores, but look at who they're playing against, and it's not that impressive IMO.

Iv actually read about the opposite, canadians and hispanics, and even europeans coming to america to get healthcare :/

I wouldnt mind a competing system, it would provide an alternative to private HC and force competition lowering all their prices and forcing coverage.

Honestly, everyone is flying everywhere for health care. People from here are going in and out, just as people are coming in here to get what they need. I think the term I heard for it was Medical Tourism. I'm not saying we are the only ones that do it, but the thing is, we do it because it's cheaper for our personal bills. Other countries such as Canada and Britain fly people over here and pay most of the costs so they can get the surgery in the states, those costs are funded by the government care they have.

He can say whatever he wants about that, but all it takes is his granting them amnesty and citizenship for them to all be 'lawfully present in the United States.' I'm not saying that he will or voting on the bill should be based on that premise, but who knows what he's planning on doing.

Dude, Bush wanted to grant amnesty to make it easier. It'd be annoying if that did go through, cause then you would be paying for more care.

And you can't just say 'he can say whatever he wants' and blow off what the bill says. That's just showing that you don't care about what the fact is. As soon as you did, you went off on a 'well, he could do this, cause he can!' red herring, distracting from the topic.

It should be before the cell doors open. any time longer than that is up to the server admin to slay or give the person a chance to get out.

Honestly, I'd say 4:30 is good enough to get out and the like. It doesn't take that long to grab a set of pre-made guns and run out of a room.

Only map I'd cut some slack on for this would be Alcatraz, since the button for cells are inside the armory, and you have to run around a bit to get in place.

Oops I meant to vote no, and I have health care.

If Obama gets that health reform passed, we're all screwed forever. I don't really see an issue with health care as it is right now. Sure, you could modify it a little and bring a few more people to fit into the budget, but national is a bit too much.

Only way that would be plausible was if we had a massive amount of hospitals with an equal amount of qualified doctors and nurses, etc.

Wait wait, nothing wrong with health care?

My dad had a 33k bill for a half-day hospital stay to get a stent put in, e.g minor surgery less than an hour.

A guy in texas had two fingers cut off in an accident. To get them both put back on would cost 100k.

People on the northern border are going to Canada/other countries to get drugs/surgeries cheaper.

Insurance makes you pay so much, but yet, you get so little out of it depending on which plan, and they won't guarantee everything: Ask Nataline Sarkisyan.

Point I'm trying to make is that there are MANY things wrong with it. I'm not really up for a full out system like other countries, but I'd like this public option to go through so the insurance companies get more competition and actually WANT to make people stay with coverage that's dependable. Currently 36% of the insurance market is controlled by two companies alone, where they decide what you get and for how much. You can't tell me that's wrong when you have that high of a % telling you what you should get. Not much competition there, I'd say.

As to being screwed if this is put in, obviously I'm skeptic, but you can't sit there and say that everything is fine and dandy for everyone right now.

i've given up enforcing the no vent camp crap... Even if a rule was made for it, I'm pretty sure a lot of people will still do it. And then we'll end up with a lot more complaints and blah blah blah blah...

I'd just deal with it and only report those that do it every single time.

I enforce it when I'm in spec. If I see someone enter ASAP, I tell them to get out. If they don't, slay. Do it again, restriction.

I don't get how hard it is to understand what pursue means. It means following their path, not go to the known destination point.

I am well aware that "Evil simon says" is prohibited in the Jailbreak server. I believe it is banned due to the "Last reaction". I think the normal Simon says game is also a "last reaction" type game. My example is as follows;

Warden: Simon says Jump

*everyone jumps*...except one.

Warden kills the one person who didn't jump. BUT, just wait, in chat he said he was about to jump.

well now what do we do? it just became a last reaction.... if you say no delay there will always be a delay unless stated that all terrorists must jump within a certain amount of given time. Now.. if no one says the "must jump within a certain amount of given time", then Terrorists should be allowed to just sit there for the rest of the round and do what simon says later on...

So, what I want to happen here is to just polish up the rules a bit if you will Oreo. Under the "SIMON SAYS GAME" just add must jump within a certain amount of given time. otherwise it's considered as a last reaction game.

Yeah, because he says 'I was about to jump' that means it's suddenly last reaction. Does that mean if I die during a game, if I say "I was about to do that", it's also last reaction? If we honestly have to say this for every game, it'll get stupid. Basically, this means trivia is unfair because people have different reaction times.

I say so long as the time given is reasonable, no bitching.

Opi go play with your corn. >.>

Back simi on topic... Isn't their like a 5-6 pound weight diffrence in the two? Also I belive the barrle of the m16 is a bit longer then that of the M4 tho all the mucle memory is the same weight can play a part in the feel of your weapon tho I could be wrong about the weight.

That's not really back on topic at all.

Honestly though, I'm still hoping things come out about this bill that reform it so that bills and payment aren't skyrocketing. It's insane that people are paying out the ass for surgeries and the like, which sometimes are minor, or small in scale in comparison.

Also... I'm not sure where this 'socialist' thing came from, but last I heard, what is on the table is the public option and "other ideas", so I don't see how choosing a different plan = equaling everything out. I somehow doubt people know what socialism is half the time it's brought up as a talking point.