quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yep. Pretty much what it feels like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yep. Pretty much what it feels like.

It is less painful than trying to get through to you.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
strange that the rest of the responders are in wrong, but YOU are "right"
LOL

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The whole notion of the Op has been explained to you who knows how many times. It wont sink in with you, ever.
My point has been clearly stated and I suspect you are the only one who doesnt get it. Even Aylee has stopped trying to defend the Op, since it is hard to defend something as government policy when it isnt government policy. Its an idea, a concept, nothing more nothing less. There was no mention of force or coercion, I even gave you an example of how something can be ensured without either. But no, you just keep digging while hoping to get out of a very big hole.
My point was you are stupid, since you fail follow everything that has been patiently explained to you. And you wonder why I am exasperated.

I asked questions about your example, and you haven't answered any of them.

While we disagree on "ensure," it continues to "not sink in with you," that I accepted, quite a few pages ago, the idea that there wasn't going to be coercion or force involved in the program. What you don't get is that for the last however many pages, it's been about a word, and not the program at all. I've stated, several times, that I think a better word would have been "support" or "promote," which still seems to me what the program is actually doing.

Perhaps you're the stupid one for not being able to figure that out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh a federal plan to help all pre diabetics and obese patients under 40?
really?

quote:

... yet they still crow about how superior they are to us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I agree, those words would have described things better. And now that that's cleared up one might think the discussion would end, but apparently they have not run it into the ground quite far enough. So we are going to have a few more pages of people pissing because you didn't respond in the way they would have liked and nitpicking over a word. And if you respond to them they will claim you just can't give it up. But what amused me the most about this thread was the fact that they just figured out this was a good idea when docs in the US have been doing it for years and yet they still crow about how superior they are to us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The idea is nothing new, as has been stated already, follow ups have always taken place.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The idea is nothing new, as has been stated already, follow ups have always taken place.

If that's the way it's been, what's the point of the programme?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
The idea is nothing new, as has been stated already, follow ups have always taken place.

If that's the way it's been, what's the point of the programme?

You need to get a life, or at least get a grip.
The idea of the programme in and of itself as a complete contcept is new-ish. The idea of obesity treatment and good diet/exercise ect isnt.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I dont need to learn fuck all except how to understand your obtuse, ignorant and stupid manner.
Your passive agressive bullshit doesnt wash with me.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

what federal plan/scheme/bill is that???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I agree, those words would have described things better. And now that that's cleared up one might think the discussion would end, but apparently they have not run it into the ground quite far enough. So we are going to have a few more pages of people pissing because you didn't respond in the way they would have liked and nitpicking over a word. And if you respond to them they will claim you just can't give it up. But what amused me the most about this thread was the fact that they just figured out this was a good idea when docs in the US have been doing it for years and yet they still crow about how superior they are to us.

Ironic to see you just added more pissing to the pissing huh ?

The idea is nothing new, as has been stated already, follow ups have always taken place. We crow that our system is better than yours, because it just is. Did you not read the report stating as much from one of your own medical foundations based in Washington ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh a federal plan to help all pre diabetics and obese patients under 40?
really?

The article stated "Under the scheme, family doctors will be asked to identify anyone who has gained weight and is at risk of diabetes – particularly those aged below 40.
They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more."

and yes they already do that here. The only difference I see is over here they do it because it's the smart thing to do and not because big brother says they have to. Nice to see the UK catching up.