Socialism One and All!

[CatoRockwell]

Well it looks like we are officially the United Socialist States of America. How does everyone enjoy our new government? Oh wait, this isn't new this is just one more nail in the coffin that has been our liberty.

So what do we do? Just sit back and let this happen? Our forefathers put their lives, fortune, everything on the table. Should we expect any less from ourselves if we want our freedom back?

They've proven time and again that they could care less about what we as a people want.



When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

So what now America? do we act like a herd of submissive weaklings, too fattened by our carnal security to do anything about it?

I'm sorry if this is too inflammatory of a thread, but come on people!

I don't care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc... Do you really want to live in a country where we no longer have any say in our government? So the Obamacare flops on its head, so they put it in as a finance bill, twist a few arms, bribe a few fat worthless politicians, and wallah! It passes!

[bornl33t]

My prayer is that lawsuits will hold this at bay until 2012. Hopefully we can vote to CHANGE it back. If not, lets HOPE the people will realize it's time to act-decisively and swiftly.

[MoeMag]

:(

[BigEvil]

Just wait and see how things 'change' when this goes into full effect. If you own any type of buisiness with employees, your costs are going to skyrocket. Either insure your employees, or the IRS comes after you. This is going to drive the economy underground.

[chafnerjr]

Oddly (and though I great disagree with the vote) the vote was representative. Meaning that our elected representatives in the house and senate have passed (what I believe is unconstitutional anyways) this hideous step towards losing the best (though not perfect) health care system in the world. In the end it's all a white wash that will cause economic turmoil for some great length of time... luckily this should be held up on constitutional grounds and put the nail in the coffin for very very many senators/representatives and with any hope our current presidents next campaign. It's time to start thinking about the next vote ladies and gentlemen! Man do I wish the tea party was a real political movement rather than a bunch of disassociated opportunists.

Viva 2012 :rolleyes:

[teufelhunden]

Midterms in 7.5 months.

[wico90]

we were already partially socialist before. if you want i can tell the fire department, police department, road workers, public librarians, and the usps to stop working if thatll make your life easier


and its not unconstitutional :D read the constitution some time itll help you understand

[CatoRockwell]

we were already partially socialist before. if you want i can tell the fire department, police department, road workers, public librarians, and the usps to stop working if thatll make your life easier


and its not unconstitutional :D read the constitution some time itll help you understand

Actually it is, because the constitution is an exclusive, not inclusive document, meaning that anything it doesn't specifically list is not authorized.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The USPS is authorized by the constitution
Police, Firemen, etc... are state functions, not federal. Despite funding from the Federal Government, and regulations imposed on them by the Federal Government, which needs to end. They do exist legally under the constitution. Now a National Police Force, etc... is not authorized.

But it has been socialist for a while. Maybe we can wake up and fight for our freedoms. If American's care about that antiquated idea of Individualism anymore.

[CatoRockwell]

Man do I wish the tea party was a real political movement rather than a bunch of disassociated opportunists.

That's because, everyone is too scared to say what everyone is really thinking... No one wants to be the one to come out and suggest the forbidden...

[BigEvil]

That's because, everyone is too scared to say what everyone is really thinking... No one wants to be the one to come out and suggest the forbidden...


A 3rd party will hand the democrats control of the country for the next 50 years... the Tea Party needs to work within the Republican party in order to straighten it out, not divide it into two ala Ross Perot in 92'

[CatoRockwell]

A 3rd party will hand the democrats control of the country for the next 50 years... the Tea Party needs to work within the Republican party in order to straighten it out, not divide it into two ala Ross Perot in 92'
I'm not talking about a 3rd party, think deeper into your most frustrated moments with our country... you'll find the answer there.

But seriously, if the Republican Party wants to work things out with the Tea Partiers, all they have to do is stop being a bunch of middle ground moderate wimps. We are more than happy for consolidation, but we are not surrendering our freedoms just for the sake of Unity.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Tunaman]

197 more government agencies to impliment this program...
thousands of bullcrap government jobs.....
16000 IRS agents to enforce it...
pay taxes to pay for it 4 yrs in advance.......
free healthcare for Illegal aliens...
Time for the Libs to go...forever.

[SCpoloRicker]

Insert generic copypasta email that will be making the rounds. Also, double-plus good points for the "well-regulated militia" and "tree of liberty" folks. Hi FedMods, by the way. :dodgy:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3478/coolstorybrow.jpg

[BigEvil]

I'm not talking about a 3rd party, think deeper into your most frustrated moments with our country... you'll find the answer there.

But seriously, if the Republican Party wants to work things out with the Tea Partiers, all they have to do is stop being a bunch of middle ground moderate wimps. We are more than happy for consolidation, but we are not surrendering our freedoms just for the sake of Unity.

Oh, im right with you sparky.

[Army]

And they laughed at the few of us that said this would happen.


Who's laughing now?

[punkncat]

This situation is so regretable. I am holding out hope that the lawyers will be able to hold this thing up into oblivion. Simply put, our country cannot afford to realize such a lofty ambition. Even if it were the right thing for a "free" nation to do anyway....

[Frizzle Fry]

:(

[Lohman446]

I love the people who have threatened to move to Canada over it :). They amuse me.

[Frizzle Fry]

I love the people who have threatened to move to Canada over it :). They amuse me.

The handful of former Canadian citizens I know have all intimated in one way or another that this is a baaaaaad idea.

[govnamac]

10 state Attorneys General already are filing lawsuits claiming that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional.

[punkncat]

10 state Attorneys General already are filing lawsuits claiming that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional.


From what I understand, GA is among them, as well as already working on a bill to make GA residents exempt.

[going_home]

10 state Attorneys General already are filing lawsuits claiming that forcing people to buy insurance is unconstitutional.


http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/03/florida-attorney-general-healt.html



Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum says he and eight other states' attorneys general plan to file a lawsuit against the reform bill approved by Congress.

On another note, according to the evil Fox Radio news today, Bill McCollum already has the lawsuit drawn up, on a PC, and within 4 minutes of Osama signing the bil he will click "send" and file the lawsuit electronically.


:nono:

[ArmyEngineer]

Usurpers.


[...] All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.[...]

Nancy Pelosi is 70 years old. (Plastic surgery much?) No legislation that she pushes will even effect her. Why is she even in politics? She should be in the Museum of Natural History next to the Dodo.

[Lohman446]

I can see the argument. The government does not have the authority to require me to purchase something from a private company just to live. They got away with Auto insurance under the theory that you don't have to own a car, but this is different

[Frizzle Fry]

I can see the argument. The government does not have the authority to require me to purchase something from a private company just to live. They got away with Auto insurance under the theory that you don't have to own a car, but this is different

Correct.

Even in the "People's Republic" of Massachusetts they didn't think it was constitutional to require people to buy insurance, so they just added a $900 fee/penalty yearly for any taxpayer that doesn't have it, and sought out organizations to make cheaper (not as good, but cheaper) health insurance available. Hypothetically, the money goes toward the ER costs accumulated by uninsured people who don't pay full in full. I can't say I love it, but in a state robs people of their rights on a daily basis it's a surprisingly genteel and well thought out approach.

[CatoRockwell]

You want to fix the healthcare system? How about releasing all healthcare to the free market? The reason medical care is so expensive is because every time the government gets involved, they do 2 things, make everything more expensive, and create state sanctioned monopolies.

You who say the republicans are just as responsible are right. ```` them both! If the government raiding my paycheck (which I work ```` hard to provide for my family) to pay for someone else's healthcare isn't socialism, then what is?

I'm sick of every lazy parasite in our system whining about their "fair share". Guess what? I work for my share. It's hard too, especially when I'm getting taxed 30% of my income.

Guess what liberals? You keep thinking that with all these socialist laws that you are going after the Fat Cats. Nope, you are screwing over the middle class, the small businessman who is trying to compete. You are so convinced that all problems stem from the greed of the rich, that you can't see that the real problem is a general feeling of entitlement in today's world. Do you know what the "land of opportunity" means? It doesn't mean a free ride, it means that you can come here, work hard and make a brighter future for yourself and your children.

Guess what conservatives? There is almost no difference between your leaders and the Democrats. You keep telling yourself that you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you know that your leaders ````. But it would be sooo much worse if it was a Democrat. Both sides of the aisle are Collectivists, they argue semantics, but generally agree on one thing: That the Government should rule every aspect of our lives.

Has anyone thought to ask the question: Should the government do anything? Instead of constantly asking, what should the government do to fix our problems. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I'm sick of the Nanny State. I'm sick of having a bunch of worthless parasites telling me how to live my life and spend my money.

The sad part is, I think there are a lot more people out there just like me. We just keep our mouths shut, because we think we are the only one's asking the same questions. Unfortunately, public education and the media have done such a good job over the last 100 years of ramming nationalism down our throats (which was part of the reason Hitler took Germany), that we are blind to the obvious truths, the principles our forefathers fought for. We refuse to do as they did. To fight for our freedoms.

Read about our forefathers, they didn't fight for some misguided idea of nationalism, they fought for their ideals. Sure they didn't always agree on the best way to uphold them. However, they generally agreed that each individual man had the right to determine his own destiny. Read the Federalist & Antifederalist papers, read the constitution convention notes. None of them were concerned about the best way to force people to be, they were all concerned about the dangers of encroachment on freedom.

Until we realize, the lies we are being fed, wake up and start focusing on our ideals instead of party or flag, we will lose everything that was so precious to our fathers.

[BigEvil]

Cato - I think you like most people out there go under the false assumption that they are really trying to fix things. If you look at the history of the progressive movement, and the years of libtard programs under the 'great society' all you will find, is that problems they were supposedly going to fix only made them far worst.

So we either need to believe that the people in power are eitehr so foolish as to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again with the same miserable results,

or

We have to believe that they are doing this on purpose.


Once the majority of the public realize that this is true, then we can really start to fix this mess, by whatever means.

[chafnerjr]

Now that's what I'm talking about.

[CatoRockwell]

Cato - I think you like most people out there go under the false assumption that they are really trying to fix things. If you look at the history of the progressive movement, and the years of libtard programs under the 'great society' all you will find, is that problems they were supposedly going to fix only made them far worst.

So we either need to believe that the people in power are eitehr so foolish as to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again with the same miserable results,

or

We have to believe that they are doing this on purpose.


Once the majority of the public realize that this is true, then we can really start to fix this mess, by whatever means.

Why wait for the majority? Our founding fathers didn't. The majority will follow as they always have like sheep. It takes the dedicated few to DO something. I've been reading a lot about Samuel Adams, I think very few of us truly understand how important he was in getting America to the point of Secession from England.

[SCpoloRicker]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5409/downsodomyupteabagg.jpg

[drg]

Wake me up when something bad actually happens. This is all in your Beck-addled heads.

[zondo]

The handful of former Canadian citizens I know have all intimated in one way or another that this is a baaaaaad idea.

Canadians are pissed because where are they going to go for decent health care.

[VailSkibum]

Wake me up when something bad actually happens. This is all in your Beck-addled heads.
Don't worry. I won't wake you on Nov. 2nd. :ninja:

[CatoRockwell]

Wake me up when something bad actually happens. This is all in your Beck-addled heads.

I believed in freedom long before Glen Beck even was on the air.

You don't think this is bad, thats fine by me. You enjoy your socialist cup of tea, as for me and the obvious large group of people who believe in freedom. I don't plan to idly sit by and lose everything I hold dear.

[drg]

I don't plan to idly sit by and lose everything I hold dear.

Such as ...

[Lohman446]

Hush, your getting in the way of talking points drg. He used evil words like socialist, that's enough :).

PS: you are so late, the federal government over stepped its boundaries a long time ago, and most of the time they use financial means (tax and hand out) to continue to hold power they should not have.

[blake20]

Well I'm sure not happy about Obammacare, I have argued against it so many times and on so many forums I'm tired of it. I think Joe Biden was correct in what he said. "This is a big ####### deal. The problem is the American people are the ones who got said Screwing!!! I think we need to repeal all of this bill and all of the revisions that the Liberal, Progressives, Socialists, what ever name they are going by this week, have put forth. I did hear 1 funny line come from this.

Who do I need to see about getting on a Death Panel? I know of a few people that need to be gotten rid of.

[CatoRockwell]

Such as ...
Hmm... where do I begin?
1. The right to keep and bear arms
2. The right to the fruit of my labor (thats a pretty all encompassing one, do I need to go into detail?)
3. Right to privacy
4. My right not to be taxed without representation

Theres a few.

I know that we've had our rights violated more than anything through taxes. I'm just wondering what's going to be the final straw before American's wake up.

[Tunaman]

Subject: Fw: From a Florida ER doctor dm


I decided I wouldn't forward anything else--but with so many of our hard working citizens in dire financial troubles, this needs to be told.





I am forwarding this.

Having spent three weeks in a hospital in Naples, Florida with my wife I couldn't help noticing what was going on in the hospital and I had a lot of time to talk to the doctors and nurses about what I had observed. Below is a commentary from an ER Doctor. Do you think this might be a big reason our health care system and our social security system are so screwed up? Do you think this might be a big reason our taxes keep going up? Who do you think these people are going to vote for?

From a Florida ER doctor:
"I live and work in a state overrun with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids - that's right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, "We are the dumbest nation on earth." Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot idealogues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. Vote them all out in 2010. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- REMEMBER ---
IN NOVEMBER 2010, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an insult to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there's a 'catch 22.'

It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. And not to receive a increase for 2010 Vote them all out of office.

Please forward this to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing for the past 11 years to over-taxed Americans.
SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW

[bornl33t]

My wife works in a hospital as a RN/BSN. Her 4 year degree cost her over 10,000 a year above what she could afford to pay. When we married I got stuck with 30,000$ worth of debt that we've been chipping away on ever so diligently. What makes me mad is that she is now after 3 years on the job just a hair above $40k and I ask her was it worth it? On top of that the hospital this year gave the nurses their biggest raise ever at a whopping 3%. We are expecting our first kid. Since I work anywhere from 8-12 hours a day it is likely we will need to pay for daycare. The irony is that daycare will cost us around 50$ a day and that's CHEAP. You tell me if she should keep her job?

Last week she had a patient who I believe was from Somalia. She had been in the states for less then a month and was having a baby. Because she has no insurance the hospital will likely end up picking up the tab and pass it on to those of us receiving treatment that's paid for by our insurance Co. On top of that she can't speak a lick of English so now the hospital is providing her with a translator to the tune of $40 a hour that we pay for. Well this lady gives birth almost killing her baby because she pushes when the doctor tells her not to push and all is not well. Some thing is wrong with the baby. The babies blood work comes back it has TB and so does the mother. My wife was in the room the whole time along with 7 other nurses who were all exposes to TB and my wife is pregnant. She cried for the rest of her shift. Needless to say now the whole floor knows we are expecting. So far no one on the floor came down with TB thank God.


Now when this new health care bill starts to go bust like SS and medicaid are they going to start a new program? Or now that the government pays the bill are the hospitals going to get less money for each claim? If the hospitals get less money do you think my wife is going to get the same money? Take into consideration how many nurses and support staff in hospitals will be in the same boat. Do you really think that you will get the same care for your money as you did back in 2010?


edit: for the lulz
"So They Just Passed A Health Care Plan Written By A Committee, Whose Chairman Says He Didn't Understand It, Passed By A Congress That Exempts Themselves From It, Signed By A President Who Smokes, With Funding Administered By A Treasury Chief Who Didn't Pay His Taxes, All To Be Overseen By A Surgeon General Who Is Obese............... And Better Yet, It Is To Be Financed By A Country That's Broke!"

[SCpoloRicker]

Insert generic copypasta email that will be making the rounds. Also, double-plus good points for the "well-regulated militia" and "tree of liberty" folks.

And, here.... we... go!

[wico90]

Hmm... where do I begin?
1. The right to keep and bear arms
2. The right to the fruit of my labor (thats a pretty all encompassing one, do I need to go into detail?)
3. Right to privacy
4. My right not to be taxed without representation

Theres a few.

I know that we've had our rights violated more than anything through taxes. I'm just wondering what's going to be the final straw before American's wake up.



Everything you quoted is set forward in the constitution and if it has been violated take it to court. You can have a gun..but why do you need somthing that the military uses?? Everyone pays taxes, its a part of the US deal with it. Your privacy has been infringed more by the PATRIOT act than anything else.

[CatoRockwell]

Everything you quoted is set forward in the constitution and if it has been violated take it to court. You can have a gun..but why do you need somthing that the military uses?? Everyone pays taxes, its a part of the US deal with it. Your privacy has been infringed more by the PATRIOT act than anything else.
1. It says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, they are being infringed. Why would I want a military grade weapon you ask? The main reason our founding father's wanted to defend this right wasn't against "burglars" it was against a tyrannical government. It was to safeguard our ability to defend our rights from the government itself.
2. The 16th amendment allowing the federal government to impose an income tax was never ratified by the states, making it null and void. It is a violation of state's rights, additionally taxes go to paying for socialist programs such as Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc... which the Welfare clause in the constitution does not authorize the government to do, despite their idea that it is a loose interpretation.
3. Privacy rights have been violated by the government ever since the establishment of secret wiretaps, CIA, etc... But yes the Patriot Act is almost a word for word reprint of laws hitler passed.

[XM15]

Lets see Obama care just cost Cat and John Deere $150 million each in added costs this year. I'm guessing American motorcycle icon HD will be hit the same on top of the $20 million extra Wi dinged them for haveing thier HQ here . Yes, Dems are focoused like a laser on jobs for China.

[chafnerjr]

Just listen to what John Conyers (House Judiciary Committee Chairman) makes up about the bill being constitutional. After a year of debate this is what he comes up with?

Here's the video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VYOa2BRbg&feature=player_embedded

For one there is NO SUCH THING as a "good and welfare" clause. Perhaps he meant one of the "two" places that welfare is ACTUALLY used in the constitution.

The first is in the preamble (NOT A CLUASE)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The second is under section 8, article 1 defining the powers of the Legislative Branch (ALSO NOT A CLUASE)

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Apparently he thinks that this is enough to allow the US gov. to FORCE you to buy into their plan or fine you/your busienss.

Now now, even John Conyers and his fellows backing Obamacare are actually using the "Interstate Commerce" Clause to force this onto us... at least that's what the proper documentation is pointing to. For those that don't remember, the interstate commerce clause was designed to stop states like Virginia from taxing products made in New York and so on.

Most of these folks seem not to know anything about the 10th AMENDMENT! That's right the final statement in that great item we call our "BILL OF RIGHTS"!!! The 10th amendment states simply:


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This one is pretty simple. The constitution DOES NOT GIVE the federal gov the power to force the general pop. to BUY a product of ANY KIND. Though they do have the right to tax... which they do already. It's called Medicade/care (Which we are still going to pay for)!


THIS GUY IS A LAWYER TALKING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT MAKES THIS BILL CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT IS THE ANSWER YOU GET!?! IT'S PRETTY MUCH "ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE I TALKED TO SAID THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM"

WHAT ISN'T WRONG OR DISTURBING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE? WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT THIS HEALTH CARE BILL IS GOOD OR BAD... LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO OUR RIGHTS AND OUR CONSTITUTION. THERE IS A REASON THOSE POWERS WERE LEFT FOR THE STATES. IT IS IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU A VOICE OVER YOUR OWN LIFE.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:




P.S. For the sake of academic honesty I should site my sources as "The United States Constitution" in case someone missed it.

[wico90]

who has even studied political science (in college) here?

[teufelhunden]

who has even studied political science (in college) here?


Why, are you looking for people who should be excluded from this discussion?

[Frizzle Fry]

who has even studied political science (in college) here?

I have, but not to any great extent as it was only loosely related to my major.

[wico90]

Why, are you looking for people who should be excluded from this discussion?


no people to include....ever heard about groupthink

[CatoRockwell]

College does not determine whether a man is educated, nor is it a good measurement. Any man can be well educated through private study. But yes i have. I am a history major minoring in political science.

[SCpoloRicker]

Oh great, undergraduates...

/off the lawn!

[drg]

Hmm... where do I begin?
1. The right to keep and bear arms
2. The right to the fruit of my labor (thats a pretty all encompassing one, do I need to go into detail?)
3. Right to privacy
4. My right not to be taxed without representation

Theres a few.

I know that we've had our rights violated more than anything through taxes. I'm just wondering what's going to be the final straw before American's wake up.

None of these things changed between Obama and Bush. Can you link to the protests you were lodging against Bush?




I am forwarding this.

*SNIP A WHOLE LOT OF BS*

SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/refugees.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/social-security-for-immigrants-and-refugees/

Honestly, it takes like a minute to check whether any email you get is true. From what I've seen, if an email says "pass this on," then there's a nearly 100% chance it's mostly or completely false.

[chafnerjr]

Frivolous arguments aside. Why is it that you think this is OK or constitutional? I'm just not seeing your point (except to point out inaccuracies which is fine).

[sjrtk]

who has even studied political science (in college) here?

I'm sorry i may not have a formal Political Science education.

But,

1) this Bill is in fact unconstitutional via the 10th amendment as stated earlier.

2) The Patriot Act is also unconstitutional as an invasion of privacy and completely violation 99.9% of the first amendment.

:Edit: Patriot Act also violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. Probably the 9th as well but that one is kind of vague.

3) My 2nd amendment rights are to guarantee I can protect my self, home, and family from criminals, and tyrants be them at home or abroad. Remember or Founding Fathers revolted against there king, with only the support of approx. 1/3 of the citizenry and armed with hunting rifles and raided govt. armories.

If it takes military weaponry for me to defend myself from a threat be it a ciminal or a hostile govt. then thats what i will own.

[drg]

Frivolous arguments aside. Why is it that you think this is OK or constitutional? I'm just not seeing your point (except to point out inaccuracies which is fine).

Basically because the government is allowed to tax you to pay for government programs. That is what this law does.

Ironically the lack of the public option is what even makes it able to be thought of as questionable.

[chafnerjr]

Basically because the government is allowed to tax you to pay for government programs. That is what this law does.

Ironically the lack of the public option is what even makes it able to be thought of as questionable.
No...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Read carefully. They can tax you in a uniform manner in order to provide for our debts, defense and general welfare. THEY DO NOT have the right to use taxation as a penalty or punishment! Not only are you are being taxed to pay for healthcare (like I said we already were). Your being taxed IF YOU DONT get it. That is a states or people right as stated in the 10th amendment period!

[Coralis]

An interesting read http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100327/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance;_ylt=AhOzcE QgJO5ZfrHjj3gIFnD9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNyZGsxN2loBGFzc2 V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI3L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bF9yZXF1 aXJpbmdfaW5zdXJhbmNlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3 MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA25ld2hl YWx0aGlucw-- and this too http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/health/main6335430.shtml

[Silverback]

who has even studied political science (in college) here?

That would be me, but it was an elective to my Biology Major... so does that mean you'll listen to me when I tell you that these LYING, TREASONOUS BASTARDS ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS WHILE THEY SELL THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE RIVER.

IF THIS "HEALTHCARE PLAN" IS SO DAMN GOOD, WHY IS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS CABINET ALL EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO ENROLL IN IT!!!!

[teufelhunden]

The interesting part about the "taxation" issue here is that its a tax on a non-transaction. Don't believe that has any precedence here. All of our taxes (truly taxes, not fees) are transaction based - income tax (the transaction is you exchanging your labor for money, giving someone else control of your money in exchange for interest, etc), sales tax (you buy something, a tax is paid on the sale), etc. There's no history (or authorization, frankly), for any of us to be taxed for not doing something. There have been fees and penalties (a parking ticket for not putting money in the meter, a fine for not getting a building permit, etc)... but those fees and penalties all have a judicial recourse. Not so with a tax, per se. Our income tax system (through which this "tax" will be administered) is based on voluntary compliance (not in the "I'm volunteering to pay" manner, but voluntary insofar as I figure and remit the tax, not someone telling me what I owe), meaning it will be up to the taxpayer to put on their return that they owe the additional tax. A government agency, not a court, will be the first level of enforcement on this. Before any shot at tax court, one generally has to wind their way through the levels of hell with the IRS.

[chafnerjr]

That would be me, but it was an elective to my Biology Major... so does that mean you'll listen to me when I tell you that these LYING, TREASONOUS BASTARDS ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS WHILE THEY SELL THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE RIVER.

IF THIS "HEALTHCARE PLAN" IS SO DAMN GOOD, WHY IS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS CABINET ALL EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO ENROLL IN IT!!!!

Actually most of the house and senate members and staff will have to buy from the "exchange". Only the whitehouse and certain members of the presidents cabinet are exempted... Which is causing much strife amongst the regular congressional aid's. Saying pretty mucht he same thing "wait... if this is so good why don't YOU have to get it". Senate democrats actually managed to avoid even voting on a provision that would have forced the President and all his favorites into the new system. This way they can't be pointed out as voting against it in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Once again, I agree but just wanted to clarify.

Now to make matters worse the dem's are actually stating their move towards socialism in this bill, Sen Baucus is quoted in foxnews as stating :

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

November seems an awful long way's away.

[bornl33t]

Actually most of the house and senate members and staff will have to buy from the "exchange". Only the whitehouse and certain members of the presidents cabinet are exempted... Which is causing much strife amongst the regular congressional aid's. Saying pretty mucht he same thing "wait... if this is so good why don't YOU have to get it". Senate democrats actually managed to avoid even voting on a provision that would have forced the President and all his favorites into the new system. This way they can't be pointed out as voting against it in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Once again, I agree but just wanted to clarify.

Now to make matters worse the dem's are actually stating their move towards socialism in this bill, Sen Baucus is quoted in foxnews as stating :


November seems an awful long way's away.

Iowa is becoming as corrupt as Illinois. The latest wave of scandals is hitting the fan and most Iowans aren't even paying attension. They are content in their bliss as the housing problems the rest of the nation is dealing with never really hit us. That said we do have a diamond in the rough.


To ensure delivery of these emails to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your email address book. Alternatively, click here to download as a business card (VCard). This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected]. Click here to view it in your browser | Click here to unsubscribe


ACTION ALERT Right after the final health care vote today, I introduced a bill to apply the new health care law to the President, Vice President, cabinet members, top White House staff, and the congressional staff who drafted the measure enacted this week. I’ve offered amendments to establish this accountability in Congress and the administration, but the amendments have twice been rejected by the Senate majority. Congress can act to pass my free-standing bill at any time, and it should. Click here to watch an interview about the history of this effort. If Congress doesn’t act, there’s a double standard. As it stands today, President Obama does not have to live under the Obama health care reforms, and neither does the congressional staff that helped to write the overhaul. The message to the people at the grassroots is that the reforms are good enough for you, but not for us. Even so, the new health care law includes most of the amendment I got adopted by the Finance Committee last September, and that will require members of Congress and their staffs to get their health insurance through health insurance exchanges. Public officials who make the laws or lead efforts to have laws changed should live under those laws. It’s the same principle that motivated the bill I got passed in 1995, which for the first time applied 12 major civil rights, labor and employment laws to Congress. *** Also today, senators voted to defeat my amendment to get rid of one of the sweetheart deals in the new health care law, giving five rural states better treatment than every other rural state, including Iowa. My amendment would have used money that’s obligated to the special deal for improved Medicare payments to physicians in all rural states this year and next. My amendment would have better safeguarded a formula fix that I got in the health care reform during Finance Committee work last fall. This fix makes sure accurate data is used to make geographic adjustments for Medicare payments to physicians and other health care professionals. It’s a matter of equity for rural providers who have been penalized by an unfair formula factor. Despite the defeat of this amendment today, my formula fix remains in the new law. In fact, a number of my amendments and legislative initiatives are in the health-care reform bill that became law on Tuesday, including my reform to make sure tax-exempt hospitals are held accountable for their special status. My legislation to require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to report payments to physicians is included. So is my legislation to establish greater transparency about nursing home ownership and safety, and my bill to disclose self-referral ownership interests in imaging facilities. I authored the Medicare fraud-fighting provisions in the new law, and the value-based purchasing reforms are based on legislation I developed several years ago in the Finance Committee. I also developed the provisions to improve Medicare reimbursement for mid-sized “tweener” hospitals, a number of which are located in Iowa. These items and others were put into the proposal during the many months of work I did last year as Ranking Member of the Finance Committee with the Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, during our effort to try to put together a bipartisan reform bill. The provisions remained in the legislation throughout the process, and the fact that they did shows that they are good policy and nonpartisan initiatives. The final health care reform bill was massive in size and scope, and I voted against it for a number of reasons, including the fact that it increases taxes and new mandates on job-creating small businesses, raises taxes and fees that the Congressional Budget Office says will be passed on to consumers and result in higher health insurance premiums, imposes mandates and huge fines on individuals, fails to address reforming the Medicare physician payment sustainable growth rate formula known as the SGR and, instead, cuts Medicare spending not to improve Medicare but to start an unsustainable new entitlement program. It also fails to do anything about health care inflation, which was supposed to be a major goal of reform. Click here to see an interview about it.

Senator Grassley's Web Site | News Center | Photo Gallery | SUBSCRIBE! YouTubeMySpaceFacebookTwitter If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe unsubscribe powered by GraphicMail This mailing system may only be used for sending permission based email. If you did not give permission to receive emails from this sender, then please notify us. This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] | Read our Privacy Policy US Senator Chuck Grassley - 135 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510, United States

[drg]

IF THIS "HEALTHCARE PLAN" IS SO DAMN GOOD, WHY IS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS CABINET ALL EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO ENROLL IN IT!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong. Congress is actually MORE required to use the exchange program than the American people. They are the only entity required to use it. President Obama will use it as well, though he is not required by law.


The interesting part about the "taxation" issue here is that its a tax on a non-transaction. Don't believe that has any precedence here. All of our taxes (truly taxes, not fees) are transaction based - income tax (the transaction is you exchanging your labor for money, giving someone else control of your money in exchange for interest, etc), sales tax (you buy something, a tax is paid on the sale), etc. There's no history (or authorization, frankly), for any of us to be taxed for not doing something. There have been fees and penalties (a parking ticket for not putting money in the meter, a fine for not getting a building permit, etc)... but those fees and penalties all have a judicial recourse. Not so with a tax, per se. Our income tax system (through which this "tax" will be administered) is based on voluntary compliance (not in the "I'm volunteering to pay" manner, but voluntary insofar as I figure and remit the tax, not someone telling me what I owe), meaning it will be up to the taxpayer to put on their return that they owe the additional tax. A government agency, not a court, will be the first level of enforcement on this. Before any shot at tax court, one generally has to wind their way through the levels of hell with the IRS.

The mandate is not going to be found unconstitutional on substance, and even if there were problems with its taxation structure, it can easily be rewritten to meet constitutional muster, by clearly structuring it as a tax on everyone, which you can be exempted from by buying insurance (that is effectively what it does now).

The irony here is that two things happen if the mandate were somehow successfully challenged on substance. It could be supplemented with a public plan option to make it unquestionable, or if the mandate goes away, private insurance risks insolvency and dissolution. Both of which are actually even more desirable, from a progressive standpoint, than the legislation, and less desirable for purported conservatives.

[Coralis]

They could remove the penalty for not carrying insurance and just give hospitals/doctors the right to refuse service to those without insurance (unless you can pay for service).

[CatoRockwell]

None of these things changed between Obama and Bush. Can you link to the protests you were lodging against Bush?

Well that was a while ago, don't even know if the threads would still be up, but if you want I can get you some testimonials. This isn't about Obama, this is about our freedoms which have been raped by Democrats & Republicans for the last 100 years.

It actually goes further back, but I don't want to get off topic with how much I hated Hamilton or Lincoln.


Oh great, undergraduates...

/off the lawn!

WTF is with the comment about "Undergraduates"? I wasn't aware that you had to have some pathetic degree in order to research, learn, develop & adhere to a philosophy. That is a pretty low blow.

Pray do tell, what credentials do you require to have an educated opinion? I'm not some disgruntled college student, I own a home, I have a career which the parasites sucked $27,000 of my hard-earned work last year (not including Medicaid or SS) , I love history so I study it. Hmm, I've actually read and studied the constitution (which pretty much makes me more educated on American Law than 90% of the morons in washington). So what qualifies me to stand up for my rights? My education? I have studied Law, Philosophy, & History more than most. Taxpayer? trust me, I don't qualify for any of the handouts everyone is getting (I make too little to be bailed out if I screw up, and too much to get a handout).

Please don't make personal attacks on my intelligence or my understanding of law. If you have an argument in favor of socialism, please make it.

Back to the previous comments, You are 100% right about Bush being just as crappy. However, most republicans that claim to love the constitution were so blinded by their party loyalty that they couldn't pull their heads out of the sand about how if a Democrat president had done what Bush did everyone would be howling back then too.

Thats not the point though, the point is: How much tyranny are we going to accept before we are willing to fight for our freedom?

[Lohman446]

Wonderful Cato... you cited research. I assume citing sources should not be any issue then.

/-10 points for every source that is not independent

//Fair and balanced as a PR system does not count as independent

///Actually agree that the healthcare "plan" is unconstitutional and our founding fathers would not accept it, but have agreed with that on various issues that have been in effect since about the 30s, so this new "OMG THIS is horrible" is amusing.

[teufelhunden]

The mandate is not going to be found unconstitutional on substance, and even if there were problems with its taxation structure, it can easily be rewritten to meet constitutional muster, by clearly structuring it as a tax on everyone, which you can be exempted from by buying insurance (that is effectively what it does now).



Even rewritten as such, it would still be the first time for such a tax. Income tax applies to everybody, but you are exempt from it if you have income below a certain level. Sales tax applies to everybody, but (in NJ at least), you are exempt from it if you are only buying necessities.

However its cut, this will continue to be a tax on a non-transaction, or on the absence of a transaction.

[chafnerjr]

Look...Let's just look at this from a financial perspective if we're to skip the whole bit about constitutionality. The financials are all pretty simple. We (our gov) are spending more than we're taxing on this. We (our gov) are now regularly voting to increase the national debt (now to a level higher than our GDP). We (our gov) has run Medicare and Medicade costs so hight that they are about to reach something near 1/3 of our annual budget and this will cost significantly more while fostering the demise of private healthcare plans. All this without reducing one single health care related cost along the way. This is unsustainable. Whether it's right by the people or not. In 10-20 years our entire economy is going to collapse and Obama and the congress who voted it in will be long gone. The congressional budget office has issued several statements stating this fact over and over and over again. We're going to destroy our country as we know it (yes, it's that serious). and for what?

Here's your socialism bit. Our politicians have (at a greater rate than any other time in history) learned to ignore and re-direct us. Almost every recent poll (which I tend to hate) shows that roughly 3/4 of the country does not want health care implemented as the current bill provides. Their elected officials are no longer listening to them, but to the President instead. The president and the whitehouse are already fundraising to help those politicians who've sacrificed all their clout with their constituents in order to help this law pass. I mean seriously! The President is PAYING congress in the OPEN to ignore the will of the people...

As far as this whole taxation rambling about whether or not a tax like this has been used before doesn't really matter. The tax (if you call it that) is not being applied uniformly to all states. This should kill it on a constitutional basis right out of the box... but I'm not convinced our court system can uphold the constitution... I'm not convinced that they've done that for a while. This is, however a states/peoples right and it's being usurped by our government.

To quote our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To cap this off... I've got two small children. They are going to be saddled with this. No one is really in a revolt mood yet meaning that my children could be asked to fight in this future scenario. I'm a bit of a history buff enough to know that these sort of things take years and years to evolve into such feelings as to provoke the wrath of the people. I just wish we (as a people) could understand the ramifications of what 2010 is going to mean for our country so that we could react accordingly.

[athomas]

From the outside looking in, I find this quite amusing. Maybe I can give a different perspective. I know people don't like getting imposed with a forced tax, which is essentially what the force purchase of health care is. Lower income people will be subsidized. What this means is that lower incomes will be subsidized by higher earner. Unfortunately, that is what happens in all modern civilized societies. The good side of this, is that no matter what happens in your financial future, you will at least have access to the same health care that everyone else has. You will never be turned down based on your economic means.

Has anyone ever dealt with private health care companies or insurance companies when it comes to big dollar values. Let me tell you. They do not part with their money easily, even if your policy says you have coverage. They will wait you out, even if it means you die. The longer they hold onto their money, the more it makes them in investment value. Having legislation stating that coverage for any circumstances can not be denied is very powerful and should be applauded.

I see statements to the fact that people leave Canada to go to the US for treatment because it is better. The reason is due to the fact that they have money. In Canada, they are treated as equals and can't jump the queue. In the US system, having money gets you faster service because there is not as big a queue due to not everyone having the same access. As a Canadian, I have to pay for health care. I do it through taxes. Do I mind/ No. I know that I can always go to a hospital or doctor at any time for any ailment and I will be treated in a very short time.

In business, I set my rates based on doing the least amount of work and getting the greatest amount of money. If I can get the same amount of money by keeping my rates up, it reduces my work load and I am happy. Why would I service the poor people that can't afford it. In a forced health care system, I can't deny the poorer people my services, so everyone is treated equally. As a big corporation, I will complain because it affects my bottom line, but in the end it is better for all people.

In the end, it is a mindset. Nobody wants to be told what to do and when to do it. Healthcare is a basic necessity that should be free in all societies. It is expensive, and the majority of the burden will always fall on the more fortunate and wealthy. In the end I think this is good for society as a whole. Being that it directly affects the way everyone does things right now, people don't like it because it takes about 5 years to accept change. It will be fine. You just can't see it yet.

[chafnerjr]

From the outside looking in, I find this quite amusing. Maybe I can give a different perspective. I know people don't like getting imposed with a forced tax, which is essentially what the force purchase of health care is. Lower income people will be subsidized. What this means is that lower incomes will be subsidized by higher earner. Unfortunately, that is what happens in all modern civilized societies. The good side of this, is that no matter what happens in your financial future, you will at least have access to the same health care that everyone else has. You will never be turned down based on your economic means.
It will be subsidized... meaning yet more money will be taken from hard working american and given to me. That's right, me! My wife and I can't afford health insurance for her, though I'm covered through work and my children are covered by a local plan. The reason I can no longer afford coverage for my wife is because of the policies my state imposed on insurance companies here have caused costs to skyrocket almost 1000% in the past 10 years. Eeventually this will lead to a lower quality of overall care as it has in Canada and the UK (the two places I'm most informed about) because no one... not even our state gov. can afford to pay for it now.


Has anyone ever dealt with private health care companies or insurance companies when it comes to big dollar values. Let me tell you. They do not part with their money easily, even if your policy says you have coverage. They will wait you out, even if it means you die. The longer they hold onto their money, the more it makes them in investment value. Having legislation stating that coverage for any circumstances can not be denied is very powerful and should be applauded.Yep, not only has a co-worker of mine had a down syndrome child which cost over 2 million in medical bills. She also credits our health insurance company and the hospitals with saving her daughters life! Also my nephew was born with another significant birth defect (which I will leave out of this). Insurance didn't cover it all but my brother the truck driver has everything well under control. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. More than 80% covered by insurance.


I see statements to the fact that people leave Canada to go to the US for treatment because it is better. The reason is due to the fact that they have money. In Canada, they are treated as equals and can't jump the queue. In the US system, having money gets you faster service because there is not as big a queue due to not everyone having the same access. As a Canadian, I have to pay for health care. I do it through taxes. Do I mind/ No. I know that I can always go to a hospital or doctor at any time for any ailment and I will be treated in a very short time.Also not true. Another co-worker of mine is Canadian, and a friends wife is Canadian. My friends wife has chronic back pain caused by two damaged vertebrae which cannot be repaired. In Canada, not only would they refuse to prescribe her ANY pain medication because they could not specifically diagnose the disease causing the degeneration (by gov. regulation they CAN'T) but she also lost her job because of the pain and inability to sit in a chair for any period of time. Because the gov. run health system there didn't give a specific diagnosis she could not claim medical disability or receive any protection from losing her job on the basis of her medical condition. She's getting great care here in the US though it does cost a lot. You see health care is expensive.


In business, I set my rates based on doing the least amount of work and getting the greatest amount of money. If I can get the same amount of money by keeping my rates up, it reduces my work load and I am happy. Why would I service the poor people that can't afford it. In a forced health care system, I can't deny the poorer people my services, so everyone is treated equally. As a big corporation, I will complain because it affects my bottom line, but in the end it is better for all people.
An unchecked private system is just as bad as an unchecked government system. Since we've never had an unchecked or unregulated medical insurance system here in the US I don't see your point. You're saying that the gov. knows better than private companies watched and regulated closely by gov agencies?


In the end, it is a mindset. Nobody wants to be told what to do and when to do it. Healthcare is a basic necessity that should be free in all societies. It is expensive, and the majority of the burden will always fall on the more fortunate and wealthy. In the end I think this is good for society as a whole. Being that it directly affects the way everyone does things right now, people don't like it because it takes about 5 years to accept change. It will be fine. You just can't see it yet.

See... now we're getting somewhere. Idealism is useful as a goal, but unrealistic in practice. NOTHING IS EVER FREE. Even the air you breath costs way more money than you can imagine (just ask the EPA and their budget). Look... the issue with healthcare is COST and COST alone. If it were cheap then no one would be talking about it. Please look at what the gov did to medicare and medicade! They are broke! They have to keep allocating more and more pretend future budget money to them. This is no different. We're going to go from a system where 90% of people can afford great healthcare to a system where 100% of people are forced to get moderate to low quality healthcare (ask the UK).

Here's the kicker. Everyone making big$$$ will simply pay cash for great healthcare from doctors that no longer working for the general public because of the red tape and slow slow slow gov reimbursement schedule. This just isn't going to work for more than a few years. Why? Because NOTHING is being done about the cost! Even the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) called this plan... and I quote: "A ponzi scheme even Bernie Madoff would have been proud of".

[Lohman446]

Once the government is involved it will only be a matter of time before costs associated to

A) Drug advertising (drug companies spend more in marketing then in research)

B) Costs associated with legal fees / insurance. As the government is picking up the tab for "pain and suffering" (inevitable) the reimbursement for these will be limited. No longer able to collect millions of dollars some of these lawsuits will magically disappear.

are limited. The government does very well protecting its own programs through new laws that are long overdue.

[chafnerjr]

Once the government is involved it will only be a matter of time before costs associated to

A) Drug advertising (drug companies spend more in marketing then in research)

B) Costs associated with legal fees / insurance. As the government is picking up the tab for "pain and suffering" (inevitable) the reimbursement for these will be limited. No longer able to collect millions of dollars some of these lawsuits will magically disappear.

are limited. The government does very well protecting its own programs through new laws that are long overdue.
Sure... if it were a government program. Right now the gov is creating an "exchange" where private companies get to "compete" for your business... well sort of. They refuse to pass any sort of tort reform so lawsuits will continue. Should a public option been part of the bill (which I'm glad wasn't) then you undoubtedly would be correct on both counts. Just don't see it here.

[Lohman446]

Sure... if it were a government program. Right now the gov is creating an "exchange" where private companies get to "compete" for your business... well sort of. They refuse to pass any sort of tort reform so lawsuits will continue. Should a public option been part of the bill (which I'm glad wasn't) then you undoubtedly would be correct on both counts. Just don't see it here.

Its not, but the government now has a stake in forcing this to succeed. And as you pointed out success requires control of costs. Is this bill perfect? No. Is it even really good? No. Is it within the powers of the federal government to mandate what this bill does? No. Can it, over time, be made to work? Yes.

[VailSkibum]

Some here may have seen these already, but for those of you that haven't, it will be a real eye opener. BOTH videos are a MUST WATCH.

25 yrs ago, Ex-KGB officer Yuri Bezmenov gives some chilling predictions about Big Government and the Progressive/Socialist idiology. He talks of demoralization and subversion. It appears that the campaign has met with enormous sucess lately.
Also, he often refers to "useful idiots" in his interviews and lectures. How many Politicians, public figures (mass media, Hollywood types), and even the guy in the next cubicle, do you know? Send them these links. It could only help.

This first link is the best one. 81 min. Ted Kennedy also has a cameo.
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2307456730142665916&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

The second is the first part from a lecture he gave at an L.A. campus.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0kQMgMJYNUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0kQMgMJYNUY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
The L.A. lecture in full, Here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9077D97CE423EF9B

[chafnerjr]

Its not, but the government now has a stake in forcing this to succeed. And as you pointed out success requires control of costs. Is this bill perfect? No. Is it even really good? No. Is it within the powers of the federal government to mandate what this bill does? No. Can it, over time, be made to work? Yes.
Well I guess that we see eye to eye one this... with perhaps exception to the final point, but I hope your right. I just don't think they can do anything without bankrupting the economy and this country in the process.

Damn, now I have an hour and a half of video to watch. I hope they're good!

In the mean time... here's a funny link just because http://techpb.com/?p=709 (seriously just watch it and ignore the chick on the from screen. It is work safe. (What does this have to do with socalism or healthcare... nothing, but I think we all need a laugh. I know I did!)

[teufelhunden]

Interesting: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63435

Logical, as well. If the federal government can compel us via tax penalties to buy health insurance, why can they not do the same for cars? Or life insurance? Or x, y, and z?

[Smoothice]

In the mean time... here's a funny link just because http://techpb.com/?p=709 (seriously just watch it and ignore the chick on the from screen. It is work safe. (What does this have to do with socalism or healthcare... nothing, but I think we all need a laugh. I know I did!)

:hail:

[drg]

From the outside looking in, I find this quite amusing. Maybe I can give a different perspective. I know people don't like getting imposed with a forced tax, which is essentially what the force purchase of health care is. Lower income people will be subsidized. What this means is that lower incomes will be subsidized by higher earner. Unfortunately, that is what happens in all modern civilized societies. The good side of this, is that no matter what happens in your financial future, you will at least have access to the same health care that everyone else has. You will never be turned down based on your economic means.

Has anyone ever dealt with private health care companies or insurance companies when it comes to big dollar values. Let me tell you. They do not part with their money easily, even if your policy says you have coverage. They will wait you out, even if it means you die. The longer they hold onto their money, the more it makes them in investment value. Having legislation stating that coverage for any circumstances can not be denied is very powerful and should be applauded.

I see statements to the fact that people leave Canada to go to the US for treatment because it is better. The reason is due to the fact that they have money. In Canada, they are treated as equals and can't jump the queue. In the US system, having money gets you faster service because there is not as big a queue due to not everyone having the same access. As a Canadian, I have to pay for health care. I do it through taxes. Do I mind/ No. I know that I can always go to a hospital or doctor at any time for any ailment and I will be treated in a very short time.

In business, I set my rates based on doing the least amount of work and getting the greatest amount of money. If I can get the same amount of money by keeping my rates up, it reduces my work load and I am happy. Why would I service the poor people that can't afford it. In a forced health care system, I can't deny the poorer people my services, so everyone is treated equally. As a big corporation, I will complain because it affects my bottom line, but in the end it is better for all people.

In the end, it is a mindset. Nobody wants to be told what to do and when to do it. Healthcare is a basic necessity that should be free in all societies. It is expensive, and the majority of the burden will always fall on the more fortunate and wealthy. In the end I think this is good for society as a whole. Being that it directly affects the way everyone does things right now, people don't like it because it takes about 5 years to accept change. It will be fine. You just can't see it yet.

Amen. It's funny how many Americans choose to believe everyone but the people who actually know something about it. Canada is the closest thing to America in terms of culture, and their experience with universal healthcare is excellent. Trying to raise fears of some kind of communist or eastern european style "bolshevik plot" is ridiculous on its face.

[BigEvil]

DRG, I always enjoy reading your posts- you are usually one of the few lefties I come across who has anything intelligent to say.

I do however have a few questions and comments;


Amen. It's funny how many Americans choose to believe everyone but the people who actually know something about it. Canada is the closest thing to America in terms of culture, and their experience with universal healthcare is excellent.

I am assuming you are speaking from personal experience. If so, please, do tell more of what you know regarding the Canadian system. Hearing first hand accounts of things I may never have the chance to experience myself will be very informative.



Trying to raise fears of some kind of communist or eastern european style "bolshevik plot" is ridiculous on its face.

The US has been moving more to the left since Teddy Roosevelt. Sometimes in small moves, sometimes in big moves. I don't think there are any Bolshevik's gathering in DC drinking vodka and plotting an October Surprise, but there most certainly is a like minded philosophy at work here. A philosophy that is NOT what the founders of this nation had intended.

For the most part, most of the American people are complacent. We allow our leaders to do whatever the hell they want, but up until a point. That point being where our way of life and lifestyles are threatened. That is happening now and the average American is starting to see it.

We (any of us) can have a civil and intelligent debate on the pros and cons of this health care legislation. Good points will be raised by both sides- however, the one glaring fact that should have automatically killed all of this is the astronomical price tag that goes with it. We cannot pay for it, and that's that.

:cheers:

[drg]

I am assuming you are speaking from personal experience. If so, please, do tell more of what you know regarding the Canadian system. Hearing first hand accounts of things I may never have the chance to experience myself will be very informative.

I do not claim or imply that I have firsthand experience with the Canadian system, only that I have seen many firsthand accounts (often in threads just like these) and they are almost uniformly highly positive. All objective research I can find says the system works well. And all metrics we have show that outcomes are as good or better than the US.

Here's a site to play with when you have a few minutes: http://www.pluralofanecdote.com/

But it is important to recognize that what we have is a far cry from the Canadian system.


The US has been moving more to the left since Teddy Roosevelt. Sometimes in small moves, sometimes in big moves. I don't think there are any Bolshevik's gathering in DC drinking vodka and plotting an October Surprise, but there most certainly is a like minded philosophy at work here. A philosophy that is NOT what the founders of this nation had intended.

For the most part, most of the American people are complacent. We allow our leaders to do whatever the hell they want, but up until a point. That point being where our way of life and lifestyles are threatened. That is happening now and the average American is starting to see it.

The founders wanted above all to not be oppressed. Replacing foreign oppression with domestic corporate oppression does not honor the vision of the founders. If there is an entity that is called upon by the founders to prevent oppression, it is the nation itself. Yes, the government itself, as the people ostensibly are the government. And insomuch as the majority of people favor many of the social policies we have borrowed from other ideologies, it is perfectly fine, within the confines of the interpretation of the laws we have, to take any particular tack on government involvement in supplying services to people.


We (any of us) can have a civil and intelligent debate on the pros and cons of this health care legislation. Good points will be raised by both sides- however, the one glaring fact that should have automatically killed all of this is the astronomical price tag that goes with it. We cannot pay for it, and that's that.

Being that on the whole the measure reduces the deficit (i.e. costs less than what we are dong now/doing nothing), I don't see any logic to that.

[Thordic]

The Canadian healthcare system is far from excellent.

I have a huge number of relatives in Canada (something around 150+ cousins/aunts/uncles at last count) and I've heard plenty of negative comments.

First off, wait times. You are entitled to care, but you aren't entitled to get it fast. I've heard from a few of my relatives that one of my uncles would still be alive today if he had been treated in the States, but because he was in Canada and was put on a wait list before he could receive surgery, he died while he was waiting.

I've also heard that since doctors are paid so little to work in the public hospitals, the best ones either go into private practice or come to the US. So you end up being treated by the doctors who aren't good enough to go somewhere else.

Basically, costs aside, most of my relatives, especially the older ones who have the most medical need, prefer US medical care. I know at least one of my great uncles came to the US to receive care because he didn't trust the Canadian system.

The Canadian system may be great for basic care for those who don't have money, but overall it is far from "excellent".

[CatoRockwell]

Well it seems we have an ideological split. Those of us that favor working for our bread, capitalism (I don't think thats a dirty word), and our rights and freedoms; and then all the socialists who think it's perfectly fine to rob a man of his hard earned labor for the betterment of the collective.

May I suggest a split then? Those of us who believed in free market, individual liberty, individualism, etc... should go form a new government which will uphold our values... all the socialist parasites, well as Ayn Rand would have put it: If we take away those that produce, then the parasites will die from destroying each other.

Hypothetically, if we split this nation in two, giving one half to everyone who wanted to form a free government, and the other half to people who wanted a socialist society where everyone works for the "common good". Which side do you think is going to last longer? Of course this is going under the assumption that the parasites would let their meal ticket leave peacefully. I know which side I'll choose.

[wico90]

"Socialists" get the north. you can have the confederacy :D

[CatoRockwell]

"Socialists" get the north. you can have the confederacy :D
Actually this time it might be more appropriate to be west vs east of course we'd have to get all the parasites out of seattle, portland, and all the major cities in california.

[SCpoloRicker]

WTF is with the comment about "Undergraduates"? I wasn't aware that you had to have some pathetic degree in order to research, learn, develop & adhere to a philosophy. That is a pretty low blow.

[My summary]Essentially, I pay taxes and have done some reading

Er, pretty much the opposite. ;) My implication was, if you're a 20 year old undergraduate, you are probably living on student loans, or on your parents' dollar. Also, many have found that the opinions of 20 somethings is often quite different from those of 30 somethings who have been self-sufficient for a few years.

But I'm sure that you are doing fine without a dirty LIEbural "pathetic degree" regardless.

Disclosure: private business school degree, homeowner, self-identify as left leaning libertarian. Big Heinlein reader.

I was responding to:


who has even studied political science (in college) here?


Oh great, undergraduates...

/off the lawn!

Y'see, the parenthetical reference "(in college)" seems to indicate that we have an aspiring scholar amongst us. I was disparaging some of the idealism that is so common in youth. Also, qualifying remarks by noting that one has "even studied political science (in college)" is also quite amusing, to me.

[CatoRockwell]

Er, pretty much the opposite. ;) My implication was, if you're a 20 year old undergraduate, you are probably living on student loans, or on your parents' dollar. Also, many have found that the opinions of 20 somethings is often quite different from those of 30 somethings who have been self-sufficient for a few years.

But I'm sure that you are doing fine without a dirty LIEbural "pathetic degree" regardless.

Disclosure: private business school degree, homeowner, self-identify as left leaning libertarian. Big Heinlein reader.

I was responding to:





Y'see, the parenthetical reference "(in college)" seems to indicate that we have an aspiring scholar amongst us. I was disparaging some of the idealism that is so common in youth. Also, qualifying remarks by noting that one has "even studied political science (in college)" is also quite amusing, to me.
apologies i thought you were referring to my comment.

[wico90]

all i wanted to know was if anyone had actually read literature on this or if you were just talking out your ***

[Lohman446]

Well it seems we have an ideological split. Those of us that favor working for our bread, capitalism (I don't think thats a dirty word), and our rights and freedoms; and then all the socialists who think it's perfectly fine to rob a man of his hard earned labor for the betterment of the collective.

Remember that the most successful capitalists also tend to give away the most money. Some of the most successful advocate taxing the rich (including themselves) at much higher rates than others.

Keep that in mind in your comments about how how capitalists would respond, especially the ones with all the capital you need.

[SCpoloRicker]

all i wanted to know was if anyone had actually read literature on this or if you were just talking out your ***

I'm not sure participating in an undergraduate PolySci course is a good indicator of background knowledge.

I'm currently reading Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle on the fiction front.

/cool stories, bro

[wico90]

how about some NON-Fiction

Machiavellii's The Discourses,

Anything by Aristotle, Socrates, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Madison, Jefferson, Washington or Adams?

Wrote a 25 page paper on civil disobedience? Or Capitalism? Or Democracy? Or the dangers of an uninformed majority?

[CatoRockwell]

how about some NON-Fiction

Machiavellii's The Discourses,

Anything by Aristotle, Socrates, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Plato, Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Madison, Jefferson, Washington or Adams?

Wrote a 25 page paper on civil disobedience? Or Capitalism? Or Democracy? Or the dangers of an uninformed majority?
Since i read alot i will list last year alone: jefferson's writings, the constitutional convention notes by madison, the federalis & anti-federalist papers, the Constitution (at least once a month), the Real Lincoln by Thomas D'Lorenzo. I know im missing a few but you get the idea. This year, i am currently reading Machiavelli's the prince, The Shenandoah Campaign (a book about stonewall jacksons famous valley campaign). On the list for this year: leviathan, 2nd treatise on civil government, Th Story of Civilization (my wife bought me all 12 volumes), Thomas Paine's works, & Samuel Adams Essays. Started studying history for fun 8 years ago.

To answer the other response: dont confuse the monsters who created state sanctioned monopolies, and helped the drive for socialism like rockefeller, morgan, etc... For true capatilists & free market advocates. These men gained power and then tried to destroy capitalism in hopes of building a powerful dynasty. You can keep the likes of them in the parasitical nation.

[SCpoloRicker]

Wrote a 25 page paper on civil disobedience? Or Capitalism? Or Democracy? Or the dangers of an uninformed majority?

Again, I went to B-School. :)

However, I'm quite familiar with the majority of authors you cite.

[XM15]

Intersting discussion but here is the real problem. I have car insurance and home insurance which I pay for and they are cheap. What do they all have in common? I have only had 4 claims on my insurance in 24 years and I have never had a claim on my home owners policy. When I need new brakes on my car I pay for that or the house needs a new window I pay for that not my insurance until something catosrophic happens. I open up the phone book and call places for the best deal for those things. Health care is expensive because some body else pays for it and not you. Replacing the evil insurance companies witth the nanny gov't doesn't change that dynamic. Until the system is consumer driven and not third party the costs will never come down.

[athomas]

The Canadian healthcare system is far from excellent.

I have a huge number of relatives in Canada (something around 150+ cousins/aunts/uncles at last count) and I've heard plenty of negative comments.

First off, wait times. You are entitled to care, but you aren't entitled to get it fast. I've heard from a few of my relatives that one of my uncles would still be alive today if he had been treated in the States, but because he was in Canada and was put on a wait list before he could receive surgery, he died while he was waiting.

I've also heard that since doctors are paid so little to work in the public hospitals, the best ones either go into private practice or come to the US. So you end up being treated by the doctors who aren't good enough to go somewhere else.

Basically, costs aside, most of my relatives, especially the older ones who have the most medical need, prefer US medical care. I know at least one of my great uncles came to the US to receive care because he didn't trust the Canadian system.

The Canadian system may be great for basic care for those who don't have money, but overall it is far from "excellent".
I guess I've been one of the lucky ones having only wait a couple of days to see a specialist, and only a couple of weeks to get MRI scans for a nonthreatening injury. A friend of mine had to wait a couple of days to get treatment for cancer. If I want more coverage, I can get private health care as well. I do have that option, and I do partake in it for dental, eye-care, and presciptions. My mother-in-law gets her high cost presciptions for free through the medical system because she is low income. Its pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

A lot of the perceived problems with the Canadian system came a number of years back when there was a shortage of doctors. The shortage, it turned out, was due to doctors no longer wanting to spend 80 hours a day at work. They wanted to spend time with their families. Who knew. There were actually the same number of doctors per patient but with less hours worked, it required more doctors. It took a while to get the medical schools up to speed to get more doctors into the system. The numbers are still climbing.

I like it because I can walk into my doctors office at any time and get treatment, money or not. No one gets turned away. Taking care of the less fortunate is the right thing to do.

[athomas]

Health care is expensive because some body else pays for it and not you. Replacing the evil insurance companies witth the nanny gov't doesn't change that dynamic. Until the system is consumer driven and not third party the costs will never come down.Not always true. If I am a drug company that has the only drug that can save your life, how much are you willing to pay? That is what drives my market. If I can sell it to 1000 people at $500,000 each, I will make way more money that selling it to 1,000,000 people at $500 each when $500 is all the general market can bear. Its the same amount of money changing hands, but my administrative and production costs are much lower, so I am in better financial condition selling to only 1000 of the richer people. Its not right, but its capitalism.

[DevilMan]

How many of you all have read the bill? Have looked over its endless pages? I admit I have not.

I don't need to. My doubts come from the government in general. The bank bailout that they did where WE paid millions so that banks could have million dollar parties and retirement payouts? The automotive save, that saved what??? A whole lot of nothing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Need I say more? That's my issue. There is enough of the people that are against this. I agree that the Obama telling them all to fall on the sword now to pass the bill against the peoples wishes that they are supposed to be representing is just WRONG! How could that be seen as legal, or proper in any sense?

Just a few things that I gleam from the web here and there. Oh and since some of you are so hard core on calling out to people that "what do you know!" and "yeah you are the authority" and all the other crap. I challenge ANY of you calling it out to read the entire bill from front to back before you make any more challenges to others. Until you do, you are NO better than anyone else and in fact are even more of a loser for doing so. Nothing like telling someone they are wrong when you yourself have no freakin idea what's going on!



Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to get legal permission to quote David Kithil's comments. Permission was granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad.

You can forward this to all of your email contacts. I think Judge Kithil hits everything right on the head, and the opposition you may encounter cannot argue over these points:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill
loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.

We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs.

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal breaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees
will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement / firefighters out there."

NOW, here comes the good stuff:

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion;however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
"end-of-life planning" seminar every five years.

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social
Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for the future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas

[going_home]

Tin foil lined coffee cans will be back in vogue soon.

http://www.instructables.com/id/RFID-Secure-Wallet


For those that actually have money left after the osama-rama bama lama ding dong communistic destruction of the greatest nation on earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCd3YLAn8Kw&feature=player_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTa8oviCPt8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.idstronghold.com

:ninja:

[drg]

The Canadian healthcare system is far from excellent.

I have a huge number of relatives in Canada (something around 150+ cousins/aunts/uncles at last count) and I've heard plenty of negative comments.

First off, wait times. You are entitled to care, but you aren't entitled to get it fast. I've heard from a few of my relatives that one of my uncles would still be alive today if he had been treated in the States, but because he was in Canada and was put on a wait list before he could receive surgery, he died while he was waiting.

I've also heard that since doctors are paid so little to work in the public hospitals, the best ones either go into private practice or come to the US. So you end up being treated by the doctors who aren't good enough to go somewhere else.

Basically, costs aside, most of my relatives, especially the older ones who have the most medical need, prefer US medical care. I know at least one of my great uncles came to the US to receive care because he didn't trust the Canadian system.

The Canadian system may be great for basic care for those who don't have money, but overall it is far from "excellent".

Please contextualize this, when did this happen? Because in times past, yes wait times were a known issue with the Canadian system. In recent times, the government has been making a concerted effort to fix that issue. Such a targeted, comprehensive effort is not possible in a privatized system.

Also due to currency values, doing just about anything in the US was FAR more profitable for Canadians in years past, not so much these days.


How many of you all have read the bill? Have looked over its endless pages? I admit I have not.

You don't need to read the whole thing to see what is in it, there are summaries, both public and private, for that purpose.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590: (click on CRS summary)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4872: (click on CRS summary)

I have actually read a lot of the actual text on a lot of the salient points. There's nothing sinister to be found there that summaries don't cover.


I don't need to. My doubts come from the government in general. The bank bailout that they did where WE paid millions so that banks could have million dollar parties and retirement payouts? The automotive save, that saved what??? A whole lot of nothing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Need I say more? That's my issue.

All of these issues are a lot more complicated than you let on. Government isn't wrong because banks misused some of the bailout money -- that's on the banks. If anything government didn't get involved ENOUGH. The auto industry bailout saved the largest manufacturing industry in the nation, a HUGE number of jobs and a tremendous amount of economic output potential. We absolutely cannot lose more of our manufacturing capacity, cars are perhaps our premier product. All of the saved companies are still around, and those bailouts were TINY (and entirely loans) compared to the financial bailouts. The situation with Fannie and Freddie is far too complicated to explain fully here, but bottom line is they were good institutions that were victims of the deregulatory excess of the private market.


IThere is enough of the people that are against this. I agree that the Obama telling them all to fall on the sword now to pass the bill against the peoples wishes that they are supposed to be representing is just WRONG! How could that be seen as legal, or proper in any sense?

The point of a representative government is ostensibly to prevent the ignorance of the masses causing undesirable results in governance. Given that people have a problem with the legislative process but support reform, it is a perfectly proper move to have passed reform. We know that a tremendous amount of mistruth and distortion has been applied against the legislative process, and the point of having representatives is to prevent the passions of the masses from getting the wrong idea and forcing bad policy.


Just a few things that I gleam from the web here and there. Oh and since some of you are so hard core on calling out to people that "what do you know!" and "yeah you are the authority" and all the other crap. I challenge ANY of you calling it out to read the entire bill from front to back before you make any more challenges to others. Until you do, you are NO better than anyone else and in fact are even more of a loser for doing so. Nothing like telling someone they are wrong when you yourself have no freakin idea what's going on!

The first thing you will notice about actually looking at the legislation is that they are: HR 3590 and 4872, not HR 3200. So posting a chain email about HR 3200 is nonsense to begin with, but on top of that, that email is almost completely false (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/).

[Lohman446]

Actually XM15 has a point here. My insurance company will pay for my yearly physical for me. It adds about $500 to the premium of a catastrophic policy and they will cover up to a $300 physical. Great deal as long as I am not paying the premium huh?

Because I pay for my own and my doctor knows me its under $200. He does not check my cholesterol through blood work but other than that its fairly thorough. I don't eat meat and I am in reasonable health we (that would be he and I) have decided the blood work is not worth it.

If I was not paying would I care if it was worth it? No, and people have demonstrated this time and time again. Personally I beleive everyone should be required (if we are going to have any requirement) to carry a catastrophic policy (5K, 10K, take your pick), and pay all out of pocket costs below that. Ok, lets use medicaide / medicare to help out those who cannot afford that, as we already do. Time and time again the free market has demonstrated putting control in consumers hands WILL reduce cost.

As to the argument "you don't care what it costs to save your life". Could be, but insurance companies do. You are fooling yourself (unless you are uber rich) if you think you are getting the past possible care from your doctor / insurance company.

[chafnerjr]

I agree with Lohman446 and DevilMan. DRG you can't fault him on quoting the wrong bill because there have been so many. Out of those many, most we're debated on behind closed doors with exceptionally little time for anyone even in the government to read it over. Don't you see that at least "something" is being pulled over your eyes?

In the end this IS a major step towards becoming a full fledged socialist state. In the same calibre as social security and even more flawed. How long until you can't get salt at a local eatery (think demolition man) because it clogs your arteries and causes health costs for everyone to go up and that's not fair. You HAVE to get in line and be healthy or YOU are bringing everyone down... right?

I know your going to say that I'm stretching it, but I'm really not. Since I've given much information regarding my issues on constitutionality, statements from our elected officials as well as many other factual points. These points have been fairly ignored in the arguments from the "for social health care" side of things I may as well venture into conjecture.

P.S. After some thinking I've realized that this bill is "probably" also in violation of the 4th amendment as well. Since when does the government have the right to my medical records?

[drg]

I agree with Lohman446 and DevilMan. DRG you can't fault him on quoting the wrong bill because there have been so many. Out of those many, most we're debated on behind closed doors with exceptionally little time for anyone even in the government to read it over. Don't you see that at least "something" is being pulled over your eyes?

Of course I can fault him. First, that email quoted is nearly completely false, and it was debunked a long time ago. Second, there aren't many bills, there is one law now. There is no excuse for getting it wrong now. No, none of them were debated behind closed doors. There was plenty of time to know what was in them. If >I< knew what was in them, you can be sure that legislators knew what was in there.

The only thing over anyone's eyes are reform opponents' hands over their own eyes. It's all out there in black and white, and has been for quite some time.

And the final reform hews pretty darn closely to Obama's campaign promises.

[DevilMan]

I'm sorry... I guess my point was missed. The point I was making is the fact that there are some stupid things trying to be pushed through. And that is FACT. When the majority of the populace opposes what is being done, then how is it proper that those in office are pushing it through? Do you mean to tell me that it has NOT been said by the Obama faction to not to worry about your political career in Nov, just go ahead and push it through. Are you sure that they Obama faction is NOT going out to try and raise money for these people NOW that they have chosen to push it through?

You know what this country needs is NOT more government controlling crap. 1. The gov needs to straighten out the crap they have already started. The gov needs to worry about FOREIGN relations. There are LOCAL, COUNTY and STATE elected officials to take care of their sectors! This is what the whole freakin system is supposed to be about! NOT about a bunch of people in far away lands that couldn't name the capital of 30 of the 50 states making decisions for those people!

What's the freakin point of having ANY of this crap if it's all just going to get overruled and thrown out on the national level? Where is the system then? IT ISN"T!!!! It's called tyranny!

That's MY point! The gov in itself is corrupt and broken and needs the overhaul!!!! THEN they may be able to overhaul something else. Until then, it's the idiots ruling with idiocy!

That's my .02

DM

[Hgblues]

lol, Theres a banner at the top of my page that says " Get Free Health Insurance Quotes" :headbang:


I didn't think any president could damage the economy of the US more than Clinton did with his wonderful Free Trade agreement that gradually sent all of our jobs overseas. I was wrong. Hussein has already cost the country no telling how much simply in campaign dollars pushing this Healthcare bill down our throat just to have his name attached to something important. It's obvious he knows nothing about our economy, our military, or our foreign affairs. His friends have 8 months to update their resume's and he has 2 years to complete his term as the most failed US president in recent history.

[drg]

I'm sorry... I guess my point was missed. The point I was making is the fact that there are some stupid things trying to be pushed through. And that is FACT. When the majority of the populace opposes what is being done, then how is it proper that those in office are pushing it through? Do you mean to tell me that it has NOT been said by the Obama faction to not to worry about your political career in Nov, just go ahead and push it through. Are you sure that they Obama faction is NOT going out to try and raise money for these people NOW that they have chosen to push it through?

You know what this country needs is NOT more government controlling crap. 1. The gov needs to straighten out the crap they have already started. The gov needs to worry about FOREIGN relations. There are LOCAL, COUNTY and STATE elected officials to take care of their sectors! This is what the whole freakin system is supposed to be about! NOT about a bunch of people in far away lands that couldn't name the capital of 30 of the 50 states making decisions for those people!

What's the freakin point of having ANY of this crap if it's all just going to get overruled and thrown out on the national level? Where is the system then? IT ISN"T!!!! It's called tyranny!

That's MY point! The gov in itself is corrupt and broken and needs the overhaul!!!! THEN they may be able to overhaul something else. Until then, it's the idiots ruling with idiocy!

That's my .02

DM

Anger doesn't replace critical thought. That you're mad and think things are bad doesn't excuse you from sticking to the truth in forming your opinions.

Funny thing is, if you do stick to the truth, there isn't much to be mad about, and things are heading in the right direction. For various items of universal national interest, federal solutions are in fact more desirable. Without federal standards, what happens is states end up waging economic war against each other.

[DevilMan]

Anger doesn't replace critical thought. That you're mad and think things are bad doesn't excuse you from sticking to the truth in forming your opinions.

Funny thing is, if you do stick to the truth, there isn't much to be mad about, and things are heading in the right direction. For various items of universal national interest, federal solutions are in fact more desirable. Without federal standards, what happens is states end up waging economic war against each other.

ummmm... economic war is what built this nation. It's called free trade for a reason. If everything is regulated and sanctioned to the extent that there is no change or value added by going elsewhere then what's the point? Nascar comes to mind.

It's BS then, now and in the future.

And again... having any thought that the gov can correctly do something in this day and age is a fairy tale.

The best part of your whole defense to me though is this... in 3 years when you jack up your knee or leg or back or some other body part playing a game of PB somewhere, and go in for treatment and then get told to take a hike and wait in line and fill out the forms only to find that the insurance you are forced to have is gonna drop your *beast of burden* like a hot potato for participating in a "known dangerous and injury prone activity" and you lose your house, your wife, your job and everything else because you can't work because you are broken, you can't get medical care, because you get to get in line, and you can't do squat about any of it but come on here and *female dog* and moan about it... I do hope I'm around to link you to this thread when it happens.

Then we'll get to see how great the system is.

BTW, there is a substantial difference in having logical regulations such as drinking ages and price levels of things and having a forced down your throat ruling on something that they know they can't control.

Do you recall what the issue was when it went to federally mandated auto insurance???

DM

[Frizzle Fry]

Tin foil lined coffee cans will be back in vogue soon.

http://www.instructables.com/id/RFID-Secure-Wallet

Already got one. Had it for 9 years or so, since the college I was attending mandated RFID chips school IDs. I was friends with a security guard (in a sociology class with me) who told me that all 5 schools in the collaborative (including a Umass school) use a tracking system that logs you when ever you walk through a door, even if you don't use your card to open it. I didn't believe him until he copied down a list of every campus building including my dorm and dorm room specifically that I'd walked through over the weekend, with accurate timestamps on each.

Most people aren't aware of what the REAL ID Act entails, mostly because most people don't know it exists and those that do know about it for the most part don't care to dig up the details and read the fine print. It's a bigger invasion of privacy than the e911 system, which is used to track people who haven't actually called 911... But only 5% of the time it's used :rolleyes: At least you can choose whether to buy a cellphone or not...

[Frizzle Fry]

Do you recall what the issue was when it went to federally mandated auto insurance???

Unless there's federally mandated car ownership that's not an issue.

I have my qualms with the way things have been done, but it's really apples and oranges when you're comparing to healthcare.

[CatoRockwell]

Unless there's federally mandated car ownership that's not an issue.

I have my qualms with the way things have been done, but it's really apples and oranges when you're comparing to healthcare.

That is not a power delegated to the Federal government by the constitution, therefore it is reserved to the states and their respective judiciaries.

[busby]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,6040296,full.story

[CatoRockwell]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,6040296,full.story
Awesome! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[SCpoloRicker]

Awesome! :clap: :clap: :clap:

FTA:



Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is "trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation," Allen said.

"But this is pushing the limit," he said.

[chafnerjr]

I can't say that I agree with the doctor mentioned in that post. However, what he's doing might be stupid and professionally unwise, but not in any way illegal. Sometimes people forget that we have the RIGHT to make BAD or STUPID decisions as long as they don't affect someone else.

As for this issues of socialism I would like to ask one question to DRG and one to anyone else.

DRG: How do you define socialism?

EVERYONE ELSE: Please explain to me how you believe that we are NOT already a socialist country!

I only bring this up because this started as a thread stating that we are now essentially a socialist nation.

We could go back and forth back and forth here. Obviously some of us believe that the gov. is smarter than the people and need to save them from themselves. Some of us believe that the people are basically intelligent and can make decisions on their own.

[CatoRockwell]

As an individual you have an inherent right to be prejudiced, no matter how horrible your views are. It is your right to refuse services to anyone based off of anything. I don't care about the Civil Rights movement. As despicable as racism, etc... is, it is every man's right to run his business as he see's fit.

The law may be what it is, but the laws were supposed to defend our rights, not tell us who has special privileges because the color of their skin, or preferences. We should always encourage people to be good, but the government has no right to force it down everyone's throat.

If someone doesn't want to do business with a group of people for his own reasons, that is his business, his property, and his right.

Now he can't go out and violate another man's rights because of his beliefs, but he can refuse to associate with him if he so chooses.


I can't say that I agree with the doctor mentioned in that post. However, what he's doing might be stupid and professionally unwise, but not in any way illegal. Sometimes people forget that we have the RIGHT to make BAD or STUPID decisions as long as they don't affect someone else.

As for this issues of socialism I would like to ask one question to DRG and one to anyone else.

DRG: How do you define socialism?

EVERYONE ELSE: Please explain to me how you believe that we are NOT already a socialist country!

I only bring this up because this started as a thread stating that we are now essentially a socialist nation.

We could go back and forth back and forth here. Obviously some of us believe that the gov. is smarter than the people and need to save them from themselves. Some of us believe that the people are basically intelligent and can make decisions on their own.

We ARE already a Socialist Nation, FDR made sure of that in the 30's.

Thank you! someone else gets it!

[drg]

ummmm... economic war is what built this nation. It's called free trade for a reason. If everything is regulated and sanctioned to the extent that there is no change or value added by going elsewhere then what's the point? Nascar comes to mind.

Economic competition, not economic war. There's a pretty big difference.

I'm not sure what the NASCAR reference means. Are you suggesting that since NASCAR rules are so stringent and field-leveling that there's no point to NASCAR racing? I'd think that assertion is ridiculous on its face.


DRG: How do you define socialism?

I define it as the actual definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

As you can see by these definitions, healthcare reform was almost completely NOT socialist, while some of our most important and effective institutions are quite socialist.

[chafnerjr]

Sorry DRG... I could have checked the internet for the ideological definition. I would really have liked your particular definition. Many socialist countries don't belong in any of those definitions and hence I cannot accept them (consider this academic rather than a challenge). I'm just trying to figure out why you seem to blindly fall on the left of every argument no matter how serious, ludicrous or irrelevant. I hear that you're a cool guy in person so don't take this personally. However, there has been a lot offered up to the table on this. In the end it seems that you believe that the liberals know how to run peoples lives better than they do regardless of the situation (healthcare, voting rights, etc...). Is this the way you truly feel? Do you feel it is the right of you, your political party or anyone else to govern how I live?

I sir am entitled (as are you) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness EVEN BEFORE we begin to consider our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Now we have laws to protect my rights from infringing upon yours as we should. After all, freedom at the expense of another is no freedom at all. Herein lies my problem. In order to provide health insurance of some others are being severely penalized.

Before you begin to go on about something not related to this argument at all think of this. Ben Franklin felt that one of the biggest threats to our country after it's founding was "A FEDERAL BANKING SYSTEM". This was due to the control it gave to the fed over peoples lives (loans and interest rates mostly). Ben Franklin was vehemently opposed to that level of government and you're OK with giving control over basic quality of life to this entity? Perhaps you trust the current president and congress but what about the next administration? How short sighted the liberals seem after screaming over what they'd call 8 years of rape?

To be fair the private banking system in Ben Franklin's the time was also very corrupt and just as bad. Does this mean that the solution MUST be one or the other? That's insane! The problem is that the gov isn't really interested in FIXING the problem of expensive health care. They've just chosen to temporarily hide the cost while gaining a HUGE amount of control over our every day lives. Now this isn't for evil intent. Those who voted for it believe it's the proper course WHICH IS WHY THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. The past several administrations (all the way back to Reagan) haven't understood that.

Neither the gov nor the insurance companies have any business running health care. WE THE PEOPLE should be allowed to make our own decisions for better or worse. Obviously the government (both federal and local) has a responsibility to regulate the basic safety of these products/services, to foster and environment that promotes both innovation and "the general welfare" of the people by carefully encouraging a free market to drive down the cost of these goods and services. There will always be a place for insurance, but it should be for catastrophic life events. The cost of basic goods and services to keep us healthy on a regular basis must be reduced to affordable levels.

You seem to believe that when some of us say: "The Federal Government should stay the heck out of healthcare" You think we're saying "I sure wish the big corporations or insurance companies ran it instead". Where did you miss the point that NEITHER is the solution and ALMOST NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEES IT republican, democrat, or otherwise!

If I am on a side it's the AMERICAN side I just wish more Americans were as well. DRG, I'm glad that you stick up for your beliefs. I just wish I understood why your beliefs seem to be the democratic party line.

P.S. "RANT here"... What happened to the Kennedy Democrats? What happened to the old democratic line from a forgotten president that espoused "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." What happened to freedom of speech (take a look at hate laws). What happened to equal rights (NOT equal rewards). What happened to our people forgetting that we're not really from here, but came here for the freedom we're giving away! I'm against amnesty, but why is everyone against immigration as long as everyone is paying their taxes? What the heck happened to FREEDOM!

WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO CIVICS!

[DevilMan]

Well put Chaf!!!

I can agree with you 100%. I'm not against immigration. I'm against ILLEGAL immigration. Giving amnesty to millions, just because they are already here is no different than opening all of the doors of the prisons to let everyone out since they are overcrowded and well... the guys inside have already done their time..

I'm not against reform, I'm against government or any other mandated FORCED mandate of what we can and can not do.

These rules are being changed for a 4 year term... who knows what will happen after that. Will they stay on? Will they get overruled? Who knows? But how many billions of dollars are going to be spent in the mean time to try and make it work.

What do you think with government mandated healthcare the time limit will be until cigarettes, beer, whiskey, guns, and anything else can be regulated out of existence, on the premise that it's "safer for you, and we know what's best".

Freedom means just that folks. That's the bottom line. If they want healthcare reform, they need to figure out why you can buy a bottle of aspirin at the store for $2 but if they give you one in the hospital for your boo boo it's $4 for a single pill!!!!

That is the problem! Why is one of the FIRST things they ask you when you go to get medical treatment is, "Do you have insurance?" NOT What is wrong with you?

THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! That just solidifies that they are wanting MONEY not to get you healed up!!!!!

DM

[CatoRockwell]

Well Stated. We aren't asking what should the government do, more: Should the government be involved at all?

[athomas]

Why is one of the FIRST things they ask you when you go to get medical treatment is, "Do you have insurance?" NOT What is wrong with you?

THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! That just solidifies that they are wanting MONEY not to get you healed up!!!!!You are absolutely correct. Its about business. That is what private industry is all about. Its the same if any citizen owns a business and sells a product or service. Before that service is offered, the method of payment is negotiated. If you don't have any method of payment, you get denied the service. After all, why should any one person or business have to bear the burden of supporting what another person wants or needs?

On the other hand, in civilized society, we expect certain basic rights and freedoms. We want to be able to say or do anything we want without persecution. And we want to be able to own property without the fear that someone with a bigger gun will come alone and take it. Who protects that right? We have a police force for that. That ensures that lawful interaction and keeps anarchy at bay. The policing includes the military as well. Its not that we necessarily want to fight, but if there is none, there isn't any deterrent for others to stay away.

We also want a means to transport our goods and services easily. Otherwise we can't compete in the marketplace. We are stuck completing in our own small area and we are prevented from enjoying what others have to offer as well. But who maintains the roads? We have government transportation agencies that do that.

Our society doesn't advance if we don't have educated labour. If everyone is a basic labourer, who designs the complicated machinery and control systems that make our lives easier. It seems we need our population to be well educated, so a system of schools and education is a must.

Every person has a right to life as well. This is where the health care comes in. In most civilized societies, all health care gets covered by the government. The costs usually make up about 85% of the budget which is recovered through taxation.

Who pays for all these services? It all needs to be paid for by taxation, and since it has been determined that you do need a certain minimum amount of income to survive, the majority of the burden gets pushed to those who make a bit more money and you don't have a choice. Its mandated. It has to be, because no one would pay anything if it was based on each persons willingness to pay rather than the requirement to pay. If all services were a pay as you go service, there would be toll booths on every street, and anarchy would rule, because the individual cost to have the police respond, would not be within the budget of the average person. The cost for education would be very expensive, because you would have bear the burden of the education yourself. This would affect the workforce, so if you owned a business that required skilled labour, it would be much more expensive. So, the cost of all products would go up and the average middle income person would become low income. Only the really rich would have any spending power. It would be the same as before the middle class was developed and you were either the elite or the poor. As rich as some think they are, they would ultimately fall into the poor class when the middle class disappears.

All government agencies are huge bureaucratic operations that are very inefficient. That's the nature of the beast. But, it is also true that the government is the largest employer. As long as the government is employing people, that money is in circulation being spent on local goods and services, employing other people. Each time money changes hands, the government gets a piece of it back through taxation. Its when the government stops spending money that most economies come to a crashing halt. If we left all our essential services up the the more "efficient" private industries, and I say "efficient" very loosely, the costs would skyrocket. Why? Because you still need someone to watch over them, the same as in a government organization. If not, they get complacent and will cut corners everywhere they can get away with it. So, you still have to deal with bureaucracy, only with an added layer, and private industry information would not be as easy to get information about so more would be hidden from the people, just as it is now with the drug companies.


So, to summarize, how do we fix this problem? We mandate that you are forced to have coverage and you have to pay for it. Poor are subsidized by the more fortunate(less poor). It is a tax, its just that it is directly paid for up front instead of hidden in a sales tax or income tax. But it does need to be there, because everyone, rich or poor, has the basic right to survive.

[CatoRockwell]

So, to summarize, how do we fix this problem? We mandate that you are forced to have coverage and you have to pay for it. Poor are subsidized by the more fortunate(less poor). It is a tax, its just that it is directly paid for up front instead of hidden in a sales tax or income tax. But it does need to be there, because everyone, rich or poor, has the basic right to survive.

Your right to "survive" does not exist beyond the idea that no one can take your life, but your right to survive does not give you the right to have government sponsored robbery.

So if you are sick, you can come over to my house and rob me at gunpoint to get the money for your operation? Is that ok?

If it isn't then you cannot allow your government to do the same acting on your behalf.

[athomas]

Your right to "survive" does not exist beyond the idea that no one can take your life, but your right to survive does not give you the right to have government sponsored robbery.

So if you are sick, you can come over to my house and rob me at gunpoint to get the money for your operation? Is that ok?

If it isn't then you cannot allow your government to do the same acting on your behalf.No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.

[CatoRockwell]

No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.
Two words: Private Charity.

Private Charity is still vastly more helpful to the poor and needy. I donate money regularly and will always give cash I have available to the homeless.

Society does not give you the right to rob me. Government was built to defend our freedoms, not to provide equality. Not only is it morally flawed to force charity on someone, but it is also impractical. Our Welfare system absorbs 60% of the money that goes into it. That means that only 40% of the money meant to reach the needy does. Any charity running in such a fashion would quickly lose it's donors. Government should always be considered the last resort when it comes to any problem. Government is inefficient, full of incompetency, and self perpetuating. They will never cease to find more ways to spend more money, bureaucracy will never willingly shrink, it only seeks to grow.

Trust me, I don't rely on law enforcement to protect me, and you are crazy if you do. They are a response to crime, not a prevention. There is no way for the government to prevent crime look at the most government controlled/monitored cities in the world like Tokyo and London, they still have horrible crime issues. Thats why I have several firearms, and my family does what it can to protect themselves.

That argument aside, paying taxes for law enforcement, is not a violation of our social compact. As it is a power I personally possess, I have the right to protect myself from those who would violate my rights to Life, Liberty, Property. You do not have the individual right to go into another man's home and steal from him no matter your need. Therefore you cannot delegate that power to government. Government cannot possess any rights that you do not individually possess.

Not only is government healthcare, impractical & inefficient as anything can be, but it is also a violation of our social contract.

[DevilMan]

No, but civilized society does not let the less fortunate die because they don't have the money to afford to live.

We have law enforcement to protect you from being robbed at gunpoint from those less fortunate than you. But who protects the less fortunate from hard times. If you are sick, quite often you don't have the means to work to pay for medical.

When those less fortunate have nothing left to live for or do not get equal treatment because of financial status, society breaks down. It causes an increase in crime. If those less fortunate have no means to earn what they need to live, they will take it, because it is survival. We are quick to spend money on policing and jails, but if we spent more on education and health, there wouldn't be near as much crime to start with, and everyone would be much happier and safer.

If everyone felt that they didn't want to pay for something everyone else uses but they didn't, then there wouldn't be any infrastructure at all. You wouldn't have the nice paved roads, or an education system, or law enforcement, or a health infrastructure.

We might as well go back 1000 years when every little group had their own little fort in the woods, but no taxes. At least even then, they took care of their sick and dying.

If those that chose to rob lost a hand each time they were caught, how many times do you think they would hold a gun to someone?

If those that killed were put to death within the 365 day period following their conviction how many times do you think they would do it?

My FREEDOM does not mean that my work, labor, earnings, property, etc can be taken by YOUR FREEDOM because you choose not to work/earn/maintain it.

All of you that are for this. How much money do you ever donate to ANYONE? How much stuff have you EVER given away to those less fortunate? How much have you ever given to a bum on the street begging? Fine you don't want to give money because they'll go buy booze or smokes or crack or meth... How many times have you given them a burger or fries or anything else? HOW MANY? So you don't want to "foster their habit"... how many times have you gone out of your way to donate a toy for a child at Christmas? How much have you willingly put in the bucket that the Salvation Army workers man during the holidays? How much PB gear have you donated to a kid to get him on the field in safer conditions?

So you think it's fine that you don't do any of this, but that it's alright for the government to come and do it for you BECAUSE they will be doing it to EVERYONE equally. Is that how it works???

Again, the fact is, the system is broken. How about this.... And trust me I'm welcome to hard data if ya have it... You see, I can only go on what I've heard... Who here has been in the hospital and has been issued any more of medication and have kept track of the cost of it? Please if ya have numbers put em up. I don't. I don't go to hospitals. So there has been no argument about how much a hospital will charge for aspirin. How many pills in a bottle? Say 100. they charge how much? say even as low as $1... I think it's closer to $5 but we'll stick at $1. that's $100 bucks for a bottle of aspirin. hmmmm or I can go to walgreens, walmart, 711, or the gas station and buy a bottle of 100 for how much? lets say $5. So that's all fair right??? sure it is... why??? Because the hospital charges the cost to the insurance company right? the insurance pays it right? So no big deal right? so none of you gave a damn about that I'm sure. so that shows a profit of $95 for a bottle of aspirin. NOW, how many of you understand what BULK BUYING means? do you really think that the hospital really pays $1 a pill for each one of them???? Come on now!

So the issue isn't going to be resolved by giving control to the gov.... It's going to be resolved by punishing those that are blatantly abusing the system. By making so the insurance companies can't raise your prices just because you use the service, and by making sure the doctors and hospitals don't rape the insurance companies. Do I understand how much a cat scan machine can cost. Yes I can. Do I understand what "return on the investment" works? YES I DO. Do I understand how when people KNOW you have money they like to charge a little more? YES I DO. Why is an MRI or XRay at the emergency room with no insurance going to cost you $100 without insurance, but if you have insurance, it'll be billed to the company at $500???? WHY??? It's called ABUSE!!!! It's called GREED! Why don't hospitals have a set fee at the door? XRay $100, Cat Scan $500, EKG $500, Tonsilectomy $100??? WHY NOT??? I mean wouldn't that be feasible? Sure there are variations to treatment, but wouldn't it be more intelligent to try and solidify a proper regulatory system to level out the system? I mean really? Is there a reason there are 2 prices for treatment?

DM

[DevilMan]

Two words: Private Charity.

Private Charity is still vastly more helpful to the poor and needy. I donate money regularly and will always give cash I have available to the homeless.

Society does not give you the right to rob me. Government was built to defend our freedoms, not to provide equality. Not only is it morally flawed to force charity on someone, but it is also impractical. Our Welfare system absorbs 60% of the money that goes into it. That means that only 40% of the money meant to reach the needy does. Any charity running in such a fashion would quickly lose it's donors. Government should always be considered the last resort when it comes to any problem. Government is inefficient, full of incompetency, and self perpetuating. They will never cease to find more ways to spend more money, bureaucracy will never willingly shrink, it only seeks to grow.

Trust me, I don't rely on law enforcement to protect me, and you are crazy if you do. They are a response to crime, not a prevention. There is no way for the government to prevent crime look at the most government controlled/monitored cities in the world like Tokyo and London, they still have horrible crime issues. Thats why I have several firearms, and my family does what it can to protect themselves.

That argument aside, paying taxes for law enforcement, is not a violation of our social compact. As it is a power I personally possess, I have the right to protect myself from those who would violate my rights to Life, Liberty, Property. You do not have the individual right to go into another man's home and steal from him no matter your need. Therefore you cannot delegate that power to government. Government cannot possess any rights that you do not individually possess.

Not only is government healthcare, impractical & inefficient as anything can be, but it is also a violation of our social contract.

Your words fall on deaf and misled ears my friend.

They don't understand that the deficit is because they keep trying to find ways to make themselves needed. They aren't. Laws are laws. Do any of you realize exactly how many traffic laws there are on the books for any one state? Do you know that if you were to enforce those laws ALONE with a fine of $100 per violation that the national debt would cure itself in about 5 years? Do you know the law on lane changing? What about tire tread depth? What bout signaling? What about keeping to the right lane unless passing? what about lights on when raining? Those laws alone if enforced would not only raise millions of dollars, but they would make this nation more safe for all. Why can auto makers make cars that MUST have seat belts in them. MUST have lights and windshields. Some have remote security, some have OnStar. And yet there seems to be incompetence in the whole deal of if you turn your windshield wipers on, your lights don't come on. Why is that do ya think?

What's the relevance to this??? It's the fact that there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS other ways to make this nation great again. This is NOT one of them.

DM

[DevilMan]

Can anyone here give me a logical and realistic reason as to why smoking a cigarette, a pipe, a cigar, pot, a hookah or any apparatus of burning a material and inhaling the smoke or fumes is good for you?

Can anyone tell us how SAFE it is?

I'm sorry, but if MY TAXES are going to go to YOUR healthcare, then I think ANYTHING hazardous should be removed from the publics ability to consume. Your meals shall be rationed and you shall be allowed no more than what it is found that your body needs through extensive studies of your caloric intake.

You shall be put on an exercise regimen so that you remain in tip top health.

You shall be restricted from doing any activity that can result in injury or death and those activities shall be decided upon by a panel of 'experts'. Some activities up for ban are: Football, Running, Bicycling, Motorcycling, Rock Climbing, Scuba Diving, Sky Diving, Driving, Walking, Showering, Sex (either with or without a partner), Swimming, Sunbathing, Consumption of Alcohol, Paintball, Fishing, Hunting, Putting up a Christmas tree. This is the preliminary list. It is to be updated and edited as deemed necessary.

Please see this list ~> http://health.howstuffworks.com/15-most-common-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states.htm and note that anything that can be connected as a contributing factor to this list shall be banned as well.

Additionally anyone that is put for any reason into a vegetative state shall be kept on life support indefinitely regardless of the wants and desires of the family and any living will that may be in existence for such occurences.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter as we are only looking out for YOUR health and well-being in this glorious world.

That is all.

DM

[chafnerjr]

I love this thread :D The only thing I'd change in that last remark DM is that you wouldn't be kept in a vegetative state as you're quality of life sure would not justify the expense to the american taxpayer ;)

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality. Would it be great if everyone had food, clothing, education, healthcare, retirement, ect for free? Sure it would, it's just NOT possible. Someone has to work for it somewhere along the lines. Should we perhaps regress to slavery? I don't know how else you all propose to afford even the items currently passed forgetting anything else. Our Nat. deficit is about to pass our GDP. Do you understand the consequences of that? Do you really?

[LK-13]

so if I understand all of you that have posted in this thread,
when some lab in the US has a breach and a pathogen like Mad-SARS-Bovine-Pox-West Avian-Swine-Nile-Anthrax-Zombie-Post-Pre-Bubonic-Undergrad-E-boli-painful rectal Paris Hilton itch-flu virus disease, runs rampant through your population;
you posters here in this thread would rather we respect your freedoms and let you suffer and die
rather that treat your illness with some Socialist vaccine or something...

in fact we should really honor "THE AMERICAN WAY" and shoot people if they sneeze!
Any commie pinko that sneezes is actually a "Terrorist" using a biological pneumatic delivery system to spread bio-toxins into the general population!
A 10 gage Solid Shot Deer Slug into the back of the head at point blank range will keep the population safe!
it is your duty as an AMERIKKKAN to shoot anyone that dare sneeze, cough, fart or hick-up in public or an place where children maybe put at risk!
you have your well armed private militas, deploy! people deploy!
hunt down and exterminate these commie pinko sicko's before we all are infected with Mad-SARS-Bovine-Pox-West Avian-Swine-Nile-Anthrax-Zombie-Post-Pre-Bubonic-Undergrad-E-boli-painful rectal Paris Hilton itch-flu virus disease!!

[chafnerjr]

:rofl:

[athomas]

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality. I'm glad your finally realizing I am talking about logic and freedom. :D

I understand where you are coming from, but the amount of people that leach off the system is actually very small. If they are given a chance to provide for themselves, most do. By taking the burden of survival off most people, they are free to go out and try to earn a living without fear that they will lose whatever social assistance they have now.

As for making things like smoking, and alcohol being restricted items? Tax them at a higher rate so that by using them you pay for the extra costs on the health care system that they bring. I believe the same should be done for fuel so that people are forced to find vehicles that are less toxic. You can't tax everything and you can't restrict everything and everybody. That is the basic freedom we enjoy. There is a price for that, and I personally don't mind paying my share and a little more to cover those less fortunate than myself. I pay a hefty amount of taxes every year through income tax and sales tax, and it really doesn't bother me, because I have a lot of freedom.

[chafnerjr]

I think that you're misreading my blurbs on here. Perhaps I'm a bit too wordy and wandering in my rants so I'll keep this concise. Not to be rude, but my posts stretch over many topics.

My point here is that the gov should NOT have the right to do so. Taxation should NEVER be use to penalize citizens. ONLY to raise funds as appropriated in article 1 of the constitution. Beyond that the 10th amendment NEEDS to be followed for ONCE!



P.S. As for taxing tobacco and alcohol to pay for their treatment... check your tax's. It's already being done. Actually in my state (NH) Tobacco tax's pay for health insurance for needy women and children. You may or may not know that I am FOR this program, but against the Federal plan. I'd be interested if you can tell why based on my previous statements. It would be even more interesting if you could figure out why I'm against taxing tobacco for this even though I'm for the program. Perhaps you'll see my version of idealism.

[LK-13]

I think that you're misreading my blurbs on here. Perhaps I'm a bit too wordy and wandering in my rants so I'll keep this concise. Not to be rude, but my posts stretch over many topics.

My point here is that the gov should NOT have the right to do so. Taxation should NEVER be use to penalize citizens. ONLY to raise funds as appropriated in article 1 of the constitution.

you mean like when income tax was introduced in Canada and The United States of America as a "TEMPORARY MEASURE TO ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT CREATED BY WORLD WAR ONE"...

The Income Tax in America: a Brief History

After the United States declared its independence and fought the Revolutionary War, the U.S. Congress relied on excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and a few other products for revenue to pay off its war debts. These taxes were not popular and led to the Whiskey Rebellion during the administration of George Washington. The U.S. instituted direct taxes on real property, estates, and slaves, taxes which Thomas Jefferson abolished in 1802. The U.S. relied solely on excise taxes for a few more years until they were repealed in 1817. At that point the U.S. had plenty of public land to sell and it relied on the sale of land and on customs duties for its revenue until the Civil War.

The cost of the Civil War prompted Congress to restore the excise taxes and to impose a tax on personal income. The tax rate at that time was 3% and proved inadequate for the war needs, so Congress passed new excise taxes on a broader range of items and began taxing licenses, professions, and trades. Following the Civil War the need for revenue declined and Congress abolished the income tax in 1872. For the next 30 years nearly all revenue was collected from the various excise taxes.

Congress passed a flat rate income tax of 2% in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled that the new tax was a direct tax and that it was not apportioned according to each state’s population, as required by Article 1 of the Constitution. The Spanish-American War forced the U.S. to increase tariffs and excise taxes, but it was vigorously debated that the U.S. could not continue to sustain itself with high tariffs and excise taxes and that those taxes were disproportionately burdensome to the less affluent.

The ensuing debates about excise taxes, tariffs, property taxes, and income taxes led to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1909 which allowed the Federal government to levy a tax on individual lawful incomes. The amendment clarified the earlier Supreme Court ruling by essentially saying that the tax on income was not a direct tax and that it could be levied without regard to the population of each State. Ironically, the amendment was proposed by conservatives in Congress who believed that the amendment would never be ratified and who hoped that the failed amendment would defeat the idea of a tax on income forever. However, in 1913 the amendment was ratified by 36 of the 48 States, the necessary three-fourths majority, and then ratified by 6 more States.

The new income tax law passed by Congress established tax rates of 1% to 7% and included generous exemptions and deductions. As a result, only 1% of the population paid income tax during the first year following the passage of the tax law.

When the U.S. entered into World War I the need for revenue greatly increased. Over the next few years the tax on incomes was increased several times, starting with the 1916 Revenue Act. The War Revenue Act of 1917 reduced exemptions and raised the tax rate again. The 1918 tax act raised the bottom tax rate to 6% and the upper rate to 77%.

Since the end of World War I the tax rate has changed many times, reflecting the needs of the Federal government at the time of the change. For example, during the prosperity of the 1920’s, the tax rate was reduced to a minimum rate of 1% and a maximum rate of 25%. As the United States’ economy has grown in strength and the Federal government has grown in size, the income tax has become an increasingly important segment of the government’s revenue. As a result, tax laws and the tax code have been revised and refined constantly in an effort to meet the changing revenue needs of the Federal government.

[chafnerjr]

Actually yes. To add to your point the first federal income tax was added after WWII for the same reason. While we may not have liked it, it was certainly constitutional. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government has the right to collect such taxes to pay for it's debts. We could of course legally repeal them, but new taxes would be voted upon by our legislature to make up of the difference on the same grounds. Like it or not we have to pay for the things we have and the things we do. No one is debating that so far as I can tell.

[Lohman446]

I love this thread :D The only thing I'd change in that last remark DM is that you wouldn't be kept in a vegetative state as you're quality of life sure would not justify the expense to the american taxpayer ;)

Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality. Would it be great if everyone had food, clothing, education, healthcare, retirement, ect for free? Sure it would, it's just NOT possible. Someone has to work for it somewhere along the lines. Should we perhaps regress to slavery? I don't know how else you all propose to afford even the items currently passed forgetting anything else. Our Nat. deficit is about to pass our GDP. Do you understand the consequences of that? Do you really?

Way to keep an open mind. Even if one agreed with what you say extreme zealotism makes people distance themselves from you. In a democracy that turns you into what can be easily labeled a "vocal minority" and ignored.

[chafnerjr]

Way to keep an open mind. Even if one agreed with what you say extreme zealotism makes people distance themselves from you. In a democracy that turns you into what can be easily labeled a "vocal minority" and ignored.
well yes... but it was late and I bit into the conservative line just a little bit. Tit for tat I guess. In any event to clarify: The first line was adding to DM's sarcasm and the second was poking at a few of the arguments presented a few post earlier and I forgot to mention which ones. Lost track of context I suppose. Thanks for calling me on it. i.e. not left vs right, just what I though was a sensible approach vs. an idealogical one. A couple of posts were what I though of as pretty ludicrous so I fell in line.

I write here assuming that we're all debating as friendly mag lovers moving democracy forward. What I find to be a bit interesting in this thread is that: For the most part, we all mostly agree on several principles, and differ greatly on how it should be done. Somehow there's always finger pointing at the other side saying some pretty outlandish things. I've had people bring up things like "so your saying we shouldn't have any police or so on because of an unrelated post regarding the current healthcare funding.

P.S> most people ranting on the internet should be considered the vocal minority.

P.P.S> is it strange for one to demand we follow our constitution and get called a zealous? If that's the case then I sir am an extremist!
:cheers:

[dre1919]

Well, I for one am a proponent of health care reform. Do I think Obama's plan is foolproof? Hell no. But, I do believe we as a nation need to go forth and copy the socialized medicine systems in place in countries like France, Britain and Spain. The health care system we have in place is ridiculous. Just because we "think" we have "choices" doesn't mean we really do. Believe me, money rules everything in our current system and that is completely wrong. I know some people do not believe the government should tell people who to see as a physician, or how to go about doing it. But, that is better than not being able to afford treatment or having to go bankrupt because medical bills send you over the brink financially. My biggest issue with Obamacare is that the government of the United States designed and oversaw the first broken system, so why trust it to create a new one?

The one thing you cannot put a price tag on is your health and yet in this country, we do. If you think socialized medicine is communism, try having $70,000 worth of medical debt and calling it "freedom to choose".

-dre

[DevilMan]

Good to see you around again Dre... how are things with you? I still don't have my tat work all done yet.

Anyway, if you will notice I agree with you on how it has been done. I don't think the US gov is capable of running it properly, economically, beneficially, or productively.

Why instead can there not be rules and regulations pushed through the system that mandates a price for services? You can have 2 people go in for the same broken bone and get the same treatment, with the same follow up, and yet they can receive two totally different bills for the services. Why is that?

See the US gov seems to be so gung ho about everything, but yet they can't even standardize a few rules/laws to apply across the board. And one of the biggest opponents to this system is the constitutionality *sp?* (is it a word?) It does clearly state that it is illegal for the gov to push rules and regs on it's people and yet be allowed to maintain it's own rules independently. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. They have abused this system long enough. Do you know how much you make the rest of your life after serving as little as 1 term? Do you know that you don't pay into SS while you serve? Why is that? Is it because you are a federal employee and so your taxes go to pay yourself, so you may as well keep them from the start?? NO! If it was that way, then any and every person of the US Military would not have to pay, and yet they do.

Reform needed? YES! But there needs to be a logical, well thought out way to implement it. And going against the desires of the majority of the populace, AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION is NOT the way to do it.

That's what people are up in arms about. I don't think there is a single person on the opposing side that says that healthcare in this country is 100% hunky dory!!!! But they are in agreement that this is NOT the way to go about fixing it.

DM

[Lohman446]

well yes... but it was late and I bit into the conservative line just a little bit. Tit for tat I guess. In any event to clarify: The first line was adding to DM's sarcasm and the second was poking at a few of the arguments presented a few post earlier and I forgot to mention which ones. Lost track of context I suppose. Thanks for calling me on it. i.e. not left vs right, just what I though was a sensible approach vs. an idealogical one. A couple of posts were what I though of as pretty ludicrous so I fell in line.

I write here assuming that we're all debating as friendly mag lovers moving democracy forward. What I find to be a bit interesting in this thread is that: For the most part, we all mostly agree on several principles, and differ greatly on how it should be done. Somehow there's always finger pointing at the other side saying some pretty outlandish things. I've had people bring up things like "so your saying we shouldn't have any police or so on because of an unrelated post regarding the current healthcare funding.

P.S> most people ranting on the internet should be considered the vocal minority.

P.P.S> is it strange for one to demand we follow our constitution and get called a zealous? If that's the case then I sir am an extremist!
:cheers:


Seriously. One side has logic AND freedom... the other is pure idealism without any regard to reality.

Thats zealotism, instantly dismissing any viewpoint contrary to yours as illogical is zealotism. It also does not help on have open and honest communication.

As to "its unconstitutional"... again, you are about a century too late with that argument. Hopefully healthcare was the "tipping point" and not just the reason for the rant.

[chafnerjr]

So I should forget about the constitution because our politicians were screwing it up before we were born? I'll have to pass on that thanks! There has been a lot of good hard information offered up in this thread (on many sides). A few here have responded with uninformed passion and I called them on it. I would happily apologize if that would make anyone feel better. Let's not let this drag down the discussion.


Reform needed? YES! But there needs to be a logical, well thought out way to implement it. And going against the desires of the majority of the populace, AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION is NOT the way to do it. Exactly right! Thank you! :cheers:

[CatoRockwell]

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

We will never get our freedoms back until we are willing to take up arms to uphold them. I am not saying we will need to take up arms, but until this people has the resolve & courage to put everything on the line for it, we will continue the slippery slope to tyranny.

“There was a time when the American people roared like lions for liberty, now they bleat like sheep for security." -Norman Vincent Peale

[cockerpunk]

Can anyone here give me a logical and realistic reason as to why smoking a cigarette, a pipe, a cigar, pot, a hookah or any apparatus of burning a material and inhaling the smoke or fumes is good for you?

Can anyone tell us how SAFE it is?

I'm sorry, but if MY TAXES are going to go to YOUR healthcare, then I think ANYTHING hazardous should be removed from the publics ability to consume. Your meals shall be rationed and you shall be allowed no more than what it is found that your body needs through extensive studies of your caloric intake.

You shall be put on an exercise regimen so that you remain in tip top health.

You shall be restricted from doing any activity that can result in injury or death and those activities shall be decided upon by a panel of 'experts'. Some activities up for ban are: Football, Running, Bicycling, Motorcycling, Rock Climbing, Scuba Diving, Sky Diving, Driving, Walking, Showering, Sex (either with or without a partner), Swimming, Sunbathing, Consumption of Alcohol, Paintball, Fishing, Hunting, Putting up a Christmas tree. This is the preliminary list. It is to be updated and edited as deemed necessary.

Please see this list ~> http://health.howstuffworks.com/15-most-common-causes-of-death-in-the-united-states.htm and note that anything that can be connected as a contributing factor to this list shall be banned as well.

Additionally anyone that is put for any reason into a vegetative state shall be kept on life support indefinitely regardless of the wants and desires of the family and any living will that may be in existence for such occurences.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter as we are only looking out for YOUR health and well-being in this glorious world.

That is all.

DM

your money is already going to those people. and the new bill doesn't mark your tax dollars to doing so, because your money is already going to those people.

the healthy pay for the sick, this is how all medical insurance works. government run or otherwise.

hell, your currently paying for all the uninsured with your money too. anyone with health insurance is giving free healthcare to the uninsured already, through higher costs due to mandated treatment in hospitals. its not like the hospital, its staff and its resources are free, the insured are covering the uninsured.

so if your complaining about socialism, you already should have been. the current law is no more socialist then the previous laws. the only way it wouldn't be socialist is if those who couldn't pay got left for dead in the ER waiting room. however, the law requiring hospitals to treat those people have been on the books for decades, and anyone who would protest them is a terrible person - period.



i do have problems with the bill though. we have a similar bill in the state of minnesota about car insurance. everyone who drives a car must have liability coverage. great idea, becuase who likes deal with bad drivers without insurance?

well, it means car insurgence in our state sucks and is super expensive.


make no mistake, with or without this bill health insurance rates WILL go up. i think the bill will force companies to drop health insurance as a benefit becuase a 2 grand fine per person is a drop in the bucket compared to the actual costs they are currently paying.


bu socialism ... this bill is simply NOT socialism. if there was anything in this whole debate at is socialist, is the law requiring treatment for those that can;t pay for ... and that law has been around FOREVER.




inb4 butt hurt glenn beck fans freak out at a dose of reality.

[drg]

Sorry DRG... I could have checked the internet for the ideological definition. I would really have liked your particular definition. Many socialist countries don't belong in any of those definitions and hence I cannot accept them (consider this academic rather than a challenge).

Eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries


I sir am entitled (as are you) to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness EVEN BEFORE we begin to consider our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Now we have laws to protect my rights from infringing upon yours as we should. After all, freedom at the expense of another is no freedom at all. Herein lies my problem. In order to provide health insurance of some others are being severely penalized.

First of all, I don't think you can actually point to anyone being "severely penalized" by the new law. Second, ultimately the ideas you put forth are ideology without regard to reality. That's what the left has that the right routinely disregards -- a firm grounding in reality. There are many, many instances where doing nothing leads to a result that is neither free nor fair. In a corporatist system like the current US, this has possibly never been more true.


Neither the gov nor the insurance companies have any business running health care. WE THE PEOPLE should be allowed to make our own decisions for better or worse. Obviously the government (both federal and local) has a responsibility to regulate the basic safety of these products/services, to foster and environment that promotes both innovation and "the general welfare" of the people by carefully encouraging a free market to drive down the cost of these goods and services.

The basic problem underlying this premise is that the ability of the average person to actually make decisions is dwindling, for a huge number of reasons. Cost increases, wage decreases, health epidemics (many societally based), recissions, market dynamics, etc. have put the very notion of access to healthcare in question for a growing segment of the population.


There will always be a place for insurance, but it should be for catastrophic life events. The cost of basic goods and services to keep us healthy on a regular basis must be reduced to affordable levels.

The way this is currently done is through insurance. Costs come down via increasing scale. There is only so much competition can do for cost reduction, and it almost always comes at the expense of quality. Not the best solution for something like healthcare. The only way to achieve greater quality and lower cost is to aggregate on a larger scale.


You seem to believe that when some of us say: "The Federal Government should stay the heck out of healthcare" You think we're saying "I sure wish the big corporations or insurance companies ran it instead". Where did you miss the point that NEITHER is the solution and ALMOST NO ONE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEES IT republican, democrat, or otherwise!

Again, ideology without consideration for reality. Are you proposing a dissolution of medical corporations? Would that not be incredible government intervention? Would that lead to a better system? We already know what will happen if the market is left to its own devices -- monolithic corporations will seize control. This is obviously undesirable.

So where does that lead us? It lead us exactly where all other first-world industrialized nations have already arrived -- that government is the appropriate entity to manage a nation's healthcare. By removing profit motive, it keeps the system clean and lean. By removing corporate concerns, it allows the system to be concerned about the needs of the people, rather than the needs of the owners.


If I am on a side it's the AMERICAN side I just wish more Americans were as well. DRG, I'm glad that you stick up for your beliefs. I just wish I understood why your beliefs seem to be the democratic party line.

To think that only one side is "for America" is offensively demagogic. Policies that put "we" before "me" are intended to benefit America as a whole. Looking at the reality of what happens when you leave people operating within the American system to their own devices, wide swaths of people suffer while relatively few rise up. All while those already at the top aggregate even more of the pie.

Ultimately you're angry about the state of the nation, and I get that. The problem is you don't understand what happened to America and therefore cannot accept what needs to be done to fix it. Right-wing policies of deregulation and fewer limits on aggregation of money and power have decimated the American middle class and have greatly exaggerated income stratification.

This was made possible politically by a foisting an ideology promoting lofty terms like "freedom" and "liberty" onto a swath of the population that was both susceptible to these concepts while being ignorant of reality (willfully or not). That's why the modern right coincides with anti-science, fundamentalist religious, anti-education and rural demographics.


so if your complaining about socialism, you already should have been. the current law is no more socialist then the previous laws. the only way it wouldn't be socialist is if those who couldn't pay got left for dead in the ER waiting room. however, the law requiring hospitals to treat those people have been on the books for decades, and anyone who would protest them is a terrible person - period.

Not only that, but a system requiring payment up front simply would not work. Obviously a person in medical distress is not in a position to render payment, and many people would not have cash or credit on hand to pay for expensive services regardless.

Billing for future payment is essential to any commercial medical system, and therefore our current problems with fraud and inability to pay will continue to exist. The only real solution is a universalizing of the ability to pay, of which one solution is universalized health insurance.

[CatoRockwell]

Glenn Beck is a late comer to the cause of freedom. It isnt fair to label everyone who believes in the constitution and inherent freedoms as Glenn Beck groupies. this bill is just one of many many atrocities committed against our freedoms. I just wonder what will be the final straw to get people ready to fight for their freedom.

[cockerpunk]

ah drg, there is a reason your not on my ignore list here!


i think we have to face facts right now, like drg said about being in reality.

there is one way and only way way we can reduce health care costs in this country - less healthcare.

last summer i worked for a 20 odd BILLION dollar medical device company. we sold over 150 different products - guess how many actually directly saved human lives?

one

we had literally one product that saved a humans life directly. EVERY other product was treatment for some chronic condition.

what does that tell you about healthcare in this country? keep in mid of course this wasn't some profit hungry company, fully a third of the budget was put back into R&D, that is developing more and better medical devices.




so sure, you can lower healthcare costs. if you want to tax medical device companies out of there R&D money and halt that forward progress. sure, you can lower healthcare costs, if you want to regulate the amount of healthcare spending on the elderly. sure you can cut healthcare costs, if you want to roll back covered services!

unless your willing to do that, nothing is going to cut healthcare costs. anyone who says otherwise is selling something.


glenn beck a constitutionalist ... lol. glenn has clearly never read the Constitution.

[Lohman446]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

[athomas]

It is the infrastructure that goes along with health care that costs alot. We try to put it in simple terms as if we were renting a room, we could do it cheaper. We also don't have to pay for all the support services that go with running a medical facility. They are expensive to run and the costs are put into other supplies. Which is why we get $5.00 aspirin. Its not that the cost of an aspirin is $5, but there is a lot of other expenses covered in the $5. Medical is just expensive due to the reports and records as well as the checks and balances that have to be done.

Cockerpucnk stated it well. Reducing service is the only way to truely cut costs, but at a price to the quality of service.

[DevilMan]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

I think that was stated previously.

And you follow it back to it's roots and you get into the cost of a degree in that field. Why do books cost $200+ dollars? Why does the education system have to change books every semester? Tell me what has change in the last century on how math works, how science works, how english works, etc. There is ZERO need to keep printing and producing new textbooks for colleges and primary schools on the level that they are doing so. And don't try that crap of "books wear out, and get tore up and get wet" and everything else.

It's waste fraud and abuse. And that's of the taxpayers money. It's no different than the places that get gov money, both fed and state and "HAVE TO SPEND IT, OR WE GET LESS NEXT TIME!" So they go out and spend it on stupid crap just to fill up the order so that WE get taxed more the next year to cover the increase since they used it all up in 07, that must mean they need more in 08 right?

Again, it's a crooked and jacked up system!!! Trying to fix corruption and greed by throwing more money at it, isn't the way it works. The same for healthcare.

DM

[chafnerjr]

Wow... this discussion has broadened hasn't it. I'm at work so I can't get into all the points I wanted to make just yet, but I have to say that textbooks do need to be updated and VERY often. Information changes very very rapidly now-a-days even for basic history, science, etc. Only english tends to do well on old books. However, this doesn't mean that they need to cost huge amounts of money. Several states are working on "open source" textbooks that will end up being a very very very small fraction of the cost. I will get into how open sourcing should be applied to certain aspects of the medical industry and the R&D of these new medicines.

Lohman446, I agree with your last post, costs are going to kill this system both ways, and I must disagree with athomas. Yes there are a lot of infrastructural costs, training, liability ins. etc that factor into that cost, but it can really be reduced far below what it is.

My main issue here is that this bill (law now), regardless of whether or not you agree with what it does, is fundamentally unconstitutional. That goes back to the original purpose of this thread. Yes I understand that gov has been violating that for decades but it doesn't invalidate the argument.

We can get back to constitutionality AND fix healthcare!

[CatoRockwell]

My question on education is the same as healthcare, it isn't a matter of what the government should do, but should the government be involved in the first place?

I firmly believe that the free market will always drive costs down, and provide every individual with more options.

[Lohman446]

I think that was stated previously.

And you follow it back to it's roots and you get into the cost of a degree in that field. Why do books cost $200+ dollars? Why does the education system have to change books every semester? Tell me what has change in the last century on how math works, how science works, how english works, etc. There is ZERO need to keep printing and producing new textbooks for colleges and primary schools on the level that they are doing so. And don't try that crap of "books wear out, and get tore up and get wet" and everything else.

It's waste fraud and abuse. And that's of the taxpayers money. It's no different than the places that get gov money, both fed and state and "HAVE TO SPEND IT, OR WE GET LESS NEXT TIME!" So they go out and spend it on stupid crap just to fill up the order so that WE get taxed more the next year to cover the increase since they used it all up in 07, that must mean they need more in 08 right?

Again, it's a crooked and jacked up system!!! Trying to fix corruption and greed by throwing more money at it, isn't the way it works. The same for healthcare.

DM

I pay the surgeon a "reasonable" rate seperate from that 10K. The surgeon, the one with all the education. The administrators have not earned the degree to be needed to be paid the same as the surgeons.

The system has a problem that regulation could have had a hand in fixing. Hospitals, health care corporations, administrators are all making excessive profits IMO.

[athomas]

....but I have to say that textbooks do need to be updated and VERY often. Information changes very very rapidly now-a-days even for basic history, science, etc. Only english tens to do well on old books. However, this doesn't mean that they need to cost huge amounts of money. Several states are working on "open source" textbooks that will end up being a very very very small fraction of the cost...
Some older texts were not well written. They are quite often too literate and are written at the Phd level. They don't cater to the average learner. Open source text books are great and are a great way to reduce costs. In my engineering courses, my text book cost is actually quite low. I do have a couple of texts that are in the $200 range, but they are used for multiple math subjects over more than one term. A lot of our courses have text books that are produced by the professors. They can be either obtained free in pdf form so you can print them as needed or can be purchased for $20.00 with a basic cover. We even have some that are nicely bound for around $30.00. These are actually the best laid out books that I have.


There are lots of ways to cut costs in any business. In healthcare, we can cut drug costs by using generic brands as soon as the 20 year patent runs out. Drug costs are one of the highest expenses in health care.

[drg]

There is a problem in costs. Say I need a routine surgery, the most common one done in American (gall bladder). The surgeon will charge me about $1200 the anistegioligist about the same. For the three hours in the hospital the hospital will charge me about $10,000. Its not a cutting edge procedure with cutting edge equipment. There is a problem when sterile room rental costs $3000+ per hour.

Until the problem in costs is addressed healthcare will continue to be prohibitively expensive regardless if individuals, the government, or insurance are paying for it.

You have conflated two different issues here, the value cost of medical services, and the "freight" cost of the current system. All medical costs contain some systemic costs, and to that extent, sweeping systemic changes are de facto cost controls.

Not as good as direct cost controls, but from a certain way of thinking, cost controls without systemic changes are unduly burdensome on the providers and facilities.

[XM15]

As for making things like smoking, and alcohol being restricted items? Tax them at a higher rate so that by using them you pay for the extra costs on the health care system that they bring. I believe the same should be done for fuel so that people are forced to find vehicles that are less toxic. You can't tax everything and you can't restrict everything and everybody. That is the basic freedom we enjoy. There is a price for that, and I personally don't mind paying my share and a little more to cover those less fortunate than myself. I pay a hefty amount of taxes every year through income tax and sales tax, and it really doesn't bother me, because I have a lot of freedom.

In the same paragraph you think the gov't should force individuals to make choices that you think are correct and also say you have alot of freedom. If you really believe the gov't has the power to do that then the only freedoms you have are what the gov't allows you to have.

[athomas]

"Forced" was the wrong word. Put a financial incentive on it and people can make a decision based on how bad they want the item vs its cost to them. People typically won't spend money unless they have to. It is known that we have huge environmental issues as well as terrible traffic congestion in some areas. Everyone seems to like the user pay idea, so tax the items that are known causes to the problem and a burden to the system. Smoking and alcohol are known issues that cause burdens to the system. Vehicles directly impact the infrastructure with both a maintenance cost and an environmental cost. The environmental cost also relates to the health problems that burden the system. So, by taxing these items, you directly make the users of the items pay for the system costs that are associated with them. You can't tax everything, because you can't separate the good from the bad in some instances, but the three listed are the top of the heap so to speak. A lot don't like the idea of taxes for these items. People are ok as long as someone else pays. This forces the users of the goods in question to fund the burden more so than everyone that doesn't use them.

[teufelhunden]

The problem with a user tax is that the argument inevitably becomes that it is a regressive tax unduly burdening the lower class. Every time the tax on cigarettes is raised you hear the same thing: it's an attack on the lower class because the lower class smokes more and it's $X per pack regardless of income, yadda yadda.

[DevilMan]

The difference with a user tax compared to a forced on everyone tax, is that not everyone "uses". Meaning you CHOOSE to do it or not. If you want to do it, then you pay the extra sales tax at the counter. If you CHOOSE to smoke and want health insurance and they raise the prices of your coverage because of it, then you CHOOSE that avenue. If you are in a high risk lifestyle or are an accident prone or ER regular and your insurance costs more then that's the way it goes. But forcing EVERYONE to do it one way is not a CHOICE.

Again, there should be regulations and restrictions put on the costs of services. NOT on the citizens! There should be NO difference in the cost of an XRay, MRI, EKG, EEG, etc from one person to the next. And yet, if you look at the numbers on the bill, if one person has insurance, and one person does not, then why are the numbers so overly inflated? Insurance is a BUSINESS!!! They are out to make money like anyone else. Well if they keep losing money because the hospitals keep gigging them, then they have to raise the prices to cover it. Even at that, you CHOOSE to pay or not pay for coverage. Is it right? NO! Is it fair? NO!!! But the fix is not in the form of making everyone pay into to something that not everyone uses. Nor is it in making some pay for others! It's in regulating the corruption and fleecing that comes from the hospitals and insurance companies. With NO regulation on how much treatment can cost a person, then how is anything supposed to get better?

As for the education can of worms I brought up... NO there is NO need to keep changing the books every year. I have several family members in the education line and they agree that it only costs money and causes trouble. There is NO difference in how 7 X 5 + 13 - 82 is calculated today than it was 100 years ago! When a teacher puts together a lesson plan or learns a way for the students to learn the material, they only have to throw it out after 1 use because next year, the book will have changed. The teachers spend more time trying to learn HOW to teach the subject matter than they have time to teach the students. Some of you obviously missed my point and want to go off on tangents about the ever evolving lines such as medical technology and computer and space and crap that you are talking about for your PHD and MBA and crap. That's NOT what I was talking about! Of course those need to be up to date. But if you notice I said PRIMARY schools and lower levels of college!

DM

[LK-13]

Beware the Painful Rectal Paris Hilton Itch...I tells ya!!

and or the Octa-Mom that would not die!!

[LK-13]

For the education of a can of worms!



Now who's supposed to pay for that?

[DevilMan]

Now who's supposed to pay for that?

It should be paid for by the community in which the books are used. By the city, town, county, etc. That's what the taxes are for. And at the same time the waste from the school board just choosing to buy new every year needs to be regulated. Either have a meeting where the books for the next year are gone through to make sure they are all alright, or something as such. And with systems of today, it's not hard to bar code and scan each book as it's issued to each student. Trust me I've done it for thousands of people with everything from books to thousand dollar laptops. Its possible and it's a lot cheaper than buying new every year. You issue the book to the student, it becomes theirs for the year. Keep in mind this isn't about Elementary school. For that level you issue the books to the teacher. You have an acceptable "LOSS" amount... like 10% Anything over that the teacher has to come up with a VERY good reason, or they have to pay up. For every 100 books I can see no more than 25 extra that should be needed as replacements. Again, I'm talking about a 5-6 year rotation where a school can buy the books for grade 2 one year, grade 3 the next, grade 4 after that, grade 5 and so on until you rotate back around to the beginning. High school and middle school the same way.

Colleges, the base level should be the same book for 3-5 years depending on the class.

Again, it boils down to the whole ideal that you have to keep spending money year after year, or you won't get money the next year. Well that money comes from taxes. If you want your kid to go to School A and you live in School A district, then you pay School A taxes.

DM

[DevilMan]

As a side note, if you don't have children then you should not be paying into a school tax. The minute that you start claiming a dependent on your tax forms, is the time you should be paying into the school system. Sure you will have 3-5 years that your kids are not in school initially, but then it gives you a chance for the school to get up to speed on costs and planning.

The point is to stop spending money, just because. Learn to be a better person and more frugal with the money, because in the end, it does come out of your pay check. (talking about people that earn their money from taxpayers)

Making laws and rules and regulations and everything else to mandate this that and the other isn't going to solve problems. Trying to become and teach people to be better in regards to respect to those around them will go much farther. Sure there are going to be dead beats in every system. But categorize them, keep them on a "watch list" so to speak and have special ways to handle them. By these people I mean bad check writers, felons, people with known legal issues.

DM

[CatoRockwell]

As a side note, if you don't have children then you should not be paying into a school tax. The minute that you start claiming a dependent on your tax forms, is the time you should be paying into the school system. Sure you will have 3-5 years that your kids are not in school initially, but then it gives you a chance for the school to get up to speed on costs and planning.

The point is to stop spending money, just because. Learn to be a better person and more frugal with the money, because in the end, it does come out of your pay check. (talking about people that earn their money from taxpayers)

Making laws and rules and regulations and everything else to mandate this that and the other isn't going to solve problems. Trying to become and teach people to be better in regards to respect to those around them will go much farther. Sure there are going to be dead beats in every system. But categorize them, keep them on a "watch list" so to speak and have special ways to handle them. By these people I mean bad check writers, felons, people with known legal issues.

DM

What if my kids aren't going to public schools?

[DevilMan]

What if my kids aren't going to public schools?

Then you pay into the private school sector. Face it... When you start claiming your kids there in itself is a way to count heads. I do believe that private schools can be kept private. If you wish to send your kid to a private school, then you simply attach the proper paperwork on your taxes at the end of the year, stating such and you get part/all of that tax collected back.

Is that too hard to do? I mean you can write off home office, mileage, supplies, network connections, etc on your taxes. It's up to you to prove that you did put your kid into a private school. There is more than one way to know whether or not you are telling the truth right? So why would you try and lie about it?

So you pay into the taxes throughout the year, you keep the receipt from the school for that year, and you file it with your taxes to get the amount that you paid into it back.

See? Not so hard is it?

DM

[Lohman446]

Then you pay into the private school sector. Face it... When you start claiming your kids there in itself is a way to count heads. I do believe that private schools can be kept private. If you wish to send your kid to a private school, then you simply attach the proper paperwork on your taxes at the end of the year, stating such and you get part/all of that tax collected back.

Is that too hard to do? I mean you can write off home office, mileage, supplies, network connections, etc on your taxes. It's up to you to prove that you did put your kid into a private school. There is more than one way to know whether or not you are telling the truth right? So why would you try and lie about it?

So you pay into the taxes throughout the year, you keep the receipt from the school for that year, and you file it with your taxes to get the amount that you paid into it back.

See? Not so hard is it?

DM

What if I rent? Around here public schools are supported by property taxes (among other things). If I rent and send my kid to a private school what then? If the government is going to get in healthcare they need to be in and run it through taxes. None of this halfway in "please god, I hope the insurance industry doesn't take advantage of its customers who MUST have it" nonsense we all know won't work. This just allows insurance companies to continue to pay ridiculous expenses and then pass them on to the consumer (high premiums) allowing the hospitals and insurance companies to get rich.

[DevilMan]

What if I rent? Around here public schools are supported by property taxes (among other things). If I rent and send my kid to a private school what then? If the government is going to get in healthcare they need to be in and run it through taxes. None of this halfway in "please god, I hope the insurance industry doesn't take advantage of its customers who MUST have it" nonsense we all know won't work. This just allows insurance companies to continue to pay ridiculous expenses and then pass them on to the consumer (high premiums) allowing the hospitals and insurance companies to get rich.

So are you saying you are FOR or AGAINST this Healthcare Reform Bill that just got passed?

As for how it's paid for, when I look at my W2 from my employer it has places for various taxes listed. It's a tax based on your income not how much property you have. Your dependents and such are not a factor to your property taxes. So there ya have it... another faulty way to do things... and yet it's how it's done. You rent, so you don't have to pay taxes to the school system. So instead of it being a property based taxed, why not an income tax? I know some of it is taken from me and I don't have any kids and never have had any. And yet I lose money to go to the system for the support of it.

DM

[cockerpunk]

i think the case for the cost effectiveness of the public schools is pretty well exemplified in the US.

good public schools is not only the morally right thing, its also the fiscally correct thing to do. public schools are far and way the most effective way to have a highly educated and thus VERY productive society. the number of times a good education pays itself off to both society and the person who gets said education is far and away the BEST investment a government could make in a society. it has better payback then military technology and the space program, and both of those are again, probably the two greatest technological and thus fiscal drives of our economy.

to claim otherwise just shows how dogmatic and ridiculous your world view is.

i have 10,000 in schools loans, thanks to going to states schools to get my engineering degree. the payback period for my loans in then roughly 1/5th or 1/6th of a year. yeah, in 2 months i will make back what i loaned out from the government.

but to get a true scale of just how efficiency public education really is, lets consider if the government paid for ALL my school. 4.5 years at 16,000 a year is about 72,000 dollars. that means the payback period on that school is just over a year.


yeah, in just over a year i will have contributed to a company and the economy as a whole about the same as i took from it getting my education.



that is BY FAR the most effective and reliable way to build wealth - education.


if you doom our public schools, you doom the economy. you also destroy the American dollar, GDP, and world standing, including military power around the world.

education ... possibly the single most valuable thing a person can have.



are public schools socialist - you bet your ***. are they a key to a strong economy, a powerful nation, a high standard of living - you bet your ***.

[teufelhunden]

Cockerpunk - I agree with your sentiment. However, the entire reason for employment is to leverage you to earn more off your labor than they pay you. So really, you'd hope to earn for your firm about 3x (in my industry, at least) what your salary is. So really, you're earning back the cost of college more quickly than you state.

On the other hand, you must consider the cost of K-12 education as well.

Let's start at $10k/student/year. I think that's a bit lower than the average in my area (NJ). We'll also assume an increase of 5%/year, that seems reasonable and about what the school budget tends to increase by per year.

K: 5k (half day)
1: 10,500
2: 11025
3: 11576
4: 12155
etc.

total would come out around 164k (run it thru excel if ya don't believe me). Still a reasonable investment in the situation above (though one should consider this is probably a student starting school today, not 15 years ago or whatever).

The problem is when it isn't a good investment, imo. When we spend the $164k and the person goes and becomes a car thief, a mobster, a deadbeat, whatever. Or they screw around thru school and end up contributing far below their "potential"

[cockerpunk]

Cockerpunk - I agree with your sentiment. However, the entire reason for employment is to leverage you to earn more off your labor than they pay you. So really, you'd hope to earn for your firm about 3x (in my industry, at least) what your salary is. So really, you're earning back the cost of college more quickly than you state.

On the other hand, you must consider the cost of K-12 education as well.

Let's start at $10k/student/year. I think that's a bit lower than the average in my area (NJ). We'll also assume an increase of 5%/year, that seems reasonable and about what the school budget tends to increase by per year.

K: 5k (half day)
1: 10,500
2: 11025
3: 11576
4: 12155
etc.

total would come out around 164k (run it thru excel if ya don't believe me). Still a reasonable investment in the situation above (though one should consider this is probably a student starting school today, not 15 years ago or whatever).

The problem is when it isn't a good investment, imo. When we spend the $164k and the person goes and becomes a car thief, a mobster, a deadbeat, whatever. Or they screw around thru school and end up contributing far below their "potential"

164k? not a good investment?

imagine how productive a person would be in society without a k-12 education. you say we have too many car thieves right now? what do you think people will do with less education then a kinder-gardener?

that point aside ...

164k, even if they literally live in poverty there whole lives, that is 20k or less per year. that means in about 8 years they will have paid off there k-12 education. even in poverty. 8 years.


education is the basis for the generation of wealth. period. the ultimate equation for life is K=$, how much you know is how much money you are worth. and ultimately, under economics, the generation of wealth is the value that everything is judged by.

keep in mind when i say knowledge, that doesn't mean math, or science, or any specific thing. it means the knowledge of how to bake a better cake, or how to sell more coffee, or anything. ultimately, wealth comes from knowledge, and knowledge comes from education.

[teufelhunden]

I was agreeing with you bud, read, don't skim.

[Lohman446]

So are you saying you are FOR or AGAINST this Healthcare Reform Bill that just got passed?

As for how it's paid for, when I look at my W2 from my employer it has places for various taxes listed. It's a tax based on your income not how much property you have. Your dependents and such are not a factor to your property taxes. So there ya have it... another faulty way to do things... and yet it's how it's done. You rent, so you don't have to pay taxes to the school system. So instead of it being a property based taxed, why not an income tax? I know some of it is taken from me and I don't have any kids and never have had any. And yet I lose money to go to the system for the support of it.

DM

I think there are major issues with it in its current form. I think that healthcare will take government intervention to check costs. Forcing people into private insurance does not address the cost issue and will only succeed at adding cost through government intervention.

That being said, there may be some moral obligation for us, as a society, to find a level of medical care that we do provide our citizens. This is not it. We probably already do considering the government programs available.

[drg]

From a way of thinking, universalizing healthcare and paying for it with a broad-based tax IS close to a user fee. We all use our health.

[DevilMan]

From a way of thinking, universalizing healthcare and paying for it with a broad-based tax IS close to a user fee. We all use our health.

We all use our health. But some of us are more keen on taking care of ourselves from the get go. Those of us that eat healthy, exercise, get regular check ups when we can even though we don't have insurance. Sure you say I do because I can. Well actually I don't. But I do try and take care of myself. I should have to cover any costs that I come across. I don't bill it out to you when I need to go in and get stitches because I damn near sliced my thumb off. Instead, I didn't go in at all, but put a band aid on it. Were stitches needed? Meh... who knows. I chose to take care of it myself, instead of running to the ER for a $500 dollar bill for stitches, meds, etc to be billed out to the rest of AO.

I guess next time I'll post up that I need donations and I am happy to know that you'll be the first to post up with the full amount to cover the tab... Hell, you know what.... I'll post up my PP and you can go ahead and start. We'll cut out the middle man. You see, I got braces put on about 2 years ago. I've not been back to the Ortho since, because I've been out of work which means out of money. So since you are so generous please send me the $2500 that I have left to pay on them so I can get the lowers put on and get the tops adjusted.

It's about making everyone else pay for someone else and it not being fair to everyone.

If you want to tax everyone about it, then they should have a say in what treatment a person gets as well as a say in how that person lives their life. Can you say Taxation With OUT Representation?

DM

[cockerpunk]

We all use our health. But some of us are more keen on taking care of ourselves from the get go. Those of us that eat healthy, exercise, get regular check ups when we can even though we don't have insurance. Sure you say I do because I can. Well actually I don't. But I do try and take care of myself. I should have to cover any costs that I come across. I don't bill it out to you when I need to go in and get stitches because I damn near sliced my thumb off. Instead, I didn't go in at all, but put a band aid on it. Were stitches needed? Meh... who knows. I chose to take care of it myself, instead of running to the ER for a $500 dollar bill for stitches, meds, etc to be billed out to the rest of AO.

I guess next time I'll post up that I need donations and I am happy to know that you'll be the first to post up with the full amount to cover the tab... Hell, you know what.... I'll post up my PP and you can go ahead and start. We'll cut out the middle man. You see, I got braces put on about 2 years ago. I've not been back to the Ortho since, because I've been out of work which means out of money. So since you are so generous please send me the $2500 that I have left to pay on them so I can get the lowers put on and get the tops adjusted.

It's about making everyone else pay for someone else and it not being fair to everyone.

If you want to tax everyone about it, then they should have a say in what treatment a person gets as well as a say in how that person lives their life. Can you say Taxation With OUT Representation?

DM

do you know how medical insurance works?

from this post you seem to advocating for a position of simply abolishing medical insurance becuase of your personal pride.

the healthy pay for the sick, that is how all medical insurance works. i pay for someone to have there kid now so that in 5 years when i break my leg in 5 places i'm not stuck with the $12,000 bill from the operations and hospital stay.

medical insurance is socialism, its a group of people banding together to even out the costs of everyone's healthcare. if you object with the nature of medical insurance itself ... then we have bigger problems then the healthcare bill we need to talk about.

as to your last bit about having a say, the insurance company has the say, they say that based on your age, your health condition, your lifestyle, that you have to pay this much to get this much coverage, that is a contract. if you don't want that coverage, you can get different coverage for a different price, or go to a different company. you wanna smoke, you gotta pay more to cover that risk.

i think you have a very bare understanding of how medical insurance, socialism, the healthcare bill, and all the rest of this stuff is interconnected.

[DevilMan]

uhhhh.. YOU CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE EEEE

to have health insurance! You CHOOOOOOOOOOSEEEEEE to pay for the healthy.

you CHOOOOOOOOSSSSSEEEEE what insurance you want and what you will pay!

NOONE was forcing you to have it! NOONE was forcing you to pay for anyone else!!!

You talk about a $12,000 bill for breaking your leg! I broke my foot in 2 places! I got 2 XRays, and a cast for 4 weeks! WHat do you think that cost? What should it cost?

You are failing to grasp the concept that we are not against reform! We ARE against a MANDATED YOU MUST HAVE PROGRAM!

Sheesh...

DM

[DevilMan]

You don't seem to get the fact that with INSURANCE being a private entity, they CAN keep raising their premiums! They CAN keep kicking out the folks or just charging too much to have it. But you see the difference is... It's a FREE MARKET!

Now what happens when the company keeps cutting out people and keeps raising prices, and keeps not paying on time, and keeps being a hassle to have???? You choose another company!!!!

Damn! There's that CHOICE word again.

DM

[DevilMan]

Do you know that it's ILLEGAL! As in a $500 fine to drink a coke or chew gum on a train in Singapore?

Do you know that it's a $250 fine for NOT flushing a public toilet?

You see... the difference is... YOU CHOOSE what you would rather do!

Do you know WHY it's illegal to chew gum on a train in Singapore?

DM

[drg]

Now what happens when the company keeps cutting out people and keeps raising prices, and keeps not paying on time, and keeps being a hassle to have???? You choose another company!!!!

Do you actually have a job? Do you find that you actually have health insurer choices? At most I've had a choice between a PPO and a HMO, so basically no choice. And my state has some of the best health insurance laws in the nation.

And that's if you have a job that offers insurance. If you don't, it can be difficult to get any company to insure you at all (until the pre-existing condition denials are done away with).

Remember, there is an industrywide antitrust exemption so rates won't vary by *that* much. There is just SO much more to this than the simplistic, ideological stance you are taking.

[DevilMan]

Do you actually have a job? Do you find that you actually have health insurer choices? At most I've had a choice between a PPO and a HMO, so basically no choice. And my state has some of the best health insurance laws in the nation.

And that's if you have a job that offers insurance. If you don't, it can be difficult to get any company to insure you at all (until the pre-existing condition denials are done away with).

Remember, there is an industrywide antitrust exemption so rates won't vary by *that* much. There is just SO much more to this than the simplistic, ideological stance you are taking.

And so the fix is for the government to run it?

I really do love the fact that you call me ideological. When I've done nothing but keep inputting ways to fix the system without a governmental overhaul. And yet you have yet, to put in anything other than, "It's the best!" type of post.

And for the record, yes I've had many jobs, in many states, in many facets of work. I am well aware of what PPO and HMO and all the other crap is. And yet again, you just can't seem to wrap your grey matter around the fact that the COMPANY YOU WORK FOR HAS A CHOICE!!!! That means YOU HAVE A CHOICE! Like it or not it's still a choice! AND BTW, there is NOTHING that ever said you had to pay into the HMO or PPO that they offer!!!! You were free to get your own if you so desired or you could do without. SO! YOU STILL HAD A CHOICE! So read what you wrote... "So basically NO choice" BS! and you stated it as such! If there was an issue with the insurance that my company went through (which there was) then my company switched to someone else (which they did) SEEE!!! It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

Well look at it this way... You have it your way right now.

DM

[drg]

And so the fix is for the government to run it?

In a word, yes. There aren't many options here. You can either have corporate power running this critical industry, bleeding people for profits and looking out for their own bottom lines, or government which ostensibly looks out for the country as a whole. The two interests really aren't compatible.


And for the record, yes I've had many jobs, in many states, in many facets of work. I am well aware of what PPO and HMO and all the other crap is. And yet again, you just can't seem to wrap your grey matter around the fact that the COMPANY YOU WORK FOR HAS A CHOICE!!!! That means YOU HAVE A CHOICE! Like it or not it's still a choice! AND BTW, there is NOTHING that ever said you had to pay into the HMO or PPO that they offer!!!! You were free to get your own if you so desired or you could do without. SO! YOU STILL HAD A CHOICE! So read what you wrote... "So basically NO choice" BS! and you stated it as such! If there was an issue with the insurance that my company went through (which there was) then my company switched to someone else (which they did) SEEE!!! It's called FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

This is EXACTLY what I mean by you being an ideological simpleton. There is no effective choice available to the worker once an insurer is decided upon by the company. Celebrating the concept of choice for a situation in which there is really no choice at all is the epitome of rote ideological adherence.

[DevilMan]

In a word, yes. There aren't many options here. You can either have corporate power running this critical industry, bleeding people for profits and looking out for their own bottom lines, or government which ostensibly looks out for the country as a whole. The two interests really aren't compatible.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by you being an ideological simpleton. There is no effective choice available to the worker once an insurer is decided upon by the company. Celebrating the concept of choice for a situation in which there is really no choice at all is the epitome of rote ideological adherence.

So is it a requirement for you to pay into the HMO/PPO of the companies choosing? NO!

As an employee of the company do you have the ability to address any issues that you have with the HMO/PPO that the company has with the company to file a complaint against them and the practices? YES!

Just because you choose to not exercise that right, don't make it a fault of the HMO/PPO.

Were you allowed to purchase other insurance outside as well as in addition to the insurance that the company chose to offer to you? YES!

Was the company required by law to offer you insurance and provide you with a discounted plan paying for part of the coverage out of their own pockets? NO!

Looks like choices to me.

And now I'm a simpleton... That works for me. You see, I do believe that too many things are made way to complicated. Name the one primary use for a car today that is different than it was 30 years ago? TRANSPORTATING PEOPLE!!!! So why is it that cars have become so complicated? It's called job security. People in elected positions keep coming up with stupid things to justify their existence. Name one thing that can't be simplified. Look at Paintball. All of the high speed markers, and 25BPS and "my gun is faster than your gun" crap of 5 years ago? And now look at it. hmmmm... simplified.

Ideological??? If anyone in this convo it would be you. For thinking that the gov can run a privatized system in a manner that is beneficial and cost effective. In case you haven't noticed those 4 words don't fit to well in the same sentence.

DM

[DevilMan]

or government which ostensibly looks out for the country as a whole.

I really have to LMMFAO at this one! So exactly which part of this country do you suppose the government has been looking out for in the past few years?

Have you looked around at the unemployment rate of this country?

What about the housing market?

Have you noticed anything funny about where jobs are located in this country?

When was the last time you saw the oil wells here in the US running at full capacity?

Have you noticed how much crap is going on in the streets here in this country that is being "looks out for" and yet, we still give millions of dollars to other countries for "AID"?

Do you realize that for the amount of AID given to Haiti it could have become the 51st State?

So please do tell... which part of this country is being "looks out for" so well.

DM

[DevilMan]

There are some lyrics in a song that says, "they call me a simple man, I reckon that I am"

If simple means that I understand that my FREEDOM extends as far as the next persons nose, and that my LIFE is mine to live without interference and turmoil from others. And that it's my CHOICE as to whether or not I want to have a beer/cigarette/candy bar/coke/play a game of PB/go scuba diving/etc then it's MY choice and it's not for you or anyone else to tell me otherwise.

Then yep... I'm simple.

If it means that if you are caught "red handed" killing someone then you are put in the ground within a 365 day period of your conviction then Yep. Simple I am.

If simple means that if you break into MY house to take something I OWN and you get lead poisoning and bleed out on the porch then not only is that fair and justified, but I should be able to charge the cleaning bill to your family.

So yeah... Simple I guess I am. You have a problem with that? Or are you just one of the people that keep on trying to justify their existence with fanciful ideas about what a wonderful place the world would be if we all lived under one big happy government.

My guess is, you've never set foot on foreign soil for anything other than a vacation get away, and have no real clue what the rest of the world is like. And hey... I could be wrong... If so then I guess you are just a slow learner.

DM

[cockerpunk]

There are some lyrics in a song that says, "they call me a simple man, I reckon that I am"

If simple means that I understand that my FREEDOM extends as far as the next persons nose, and that my LIFE is mine to live without interference and turmoil from others. And that it's my CHOICE as to whether or not I want to have a beer/cigarette/candy bar/coke/play a game of PB/go scuba diving/etc then it's MY choice and it's not for you or anyone else to tell me otherwise.

Then yep... I'm simple.

If it means that if you are caught "red handed" killing someone then you are put in the ground within a 365 day period of your conviction then Yep. Simple I am.

If simple means that if you break into MY house to take something I OWN and you get lead poisoning and bleed out on the porch then not only is that fair and justified, but I should be able to charge the cleaning bill to your family.

So yeah... Simple I guess I am. You have a problem with that? Or are you just one of the people that keep on trying to justify their existence with fanciful ideas about what a wonderful place the world would be if we all lived under one big happy government.

My guess is, you've never set foot on foreign soil for anything other than a vacation get away, and have no real clue what the rest of the world is like. And hey... I could be wrong... If so then I guess you are just a slow learner.

DM

drg, hes one of the "unreachables" i call them.

you can literally go down to explaining the exact nuts and bolts to them, and there dogma will still have them saying its not true. its a common problem in discussions about global warming, evolution vs creation, historical revisionism, and theism in general.

the technique goes like this - admit your ignorance, use said misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the topic as an argument, ignore everyone trying to educate you, and conclude that you won the argument.

a common problem among people who live by dogma instead of reason.

[DevilMan]

drg, hes one of the "unreachables" i call them.

you can literally go down to explaining the exact nuts and bolts to them, and there dogma will still have them saying its not true. its a common problem in discussions about global warming, evolution vs creation, historical revisionism, and theism in general.

the technique goes like this - admit your ignorance, use said misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the topic as an argument, ignore everyone trying to educate you, and conclude that you won the argument.

a common problem among people who live by dogma instead of reason.

And so I'm explained... And yet so far you and DRG have yet to explain any other solution.

I also have to find humor in the fact that you have to spew out all of these big fanciful words and explanations to try and make yourself look so intellectual... Hell he did it with SIMPLETON...

Tell me this ole wise one who knows, sees, and hears all....

Do you think that the passing of laws by the government to which the government is exempt from following is proper/constitutional?

Is that simple enough?

DM

[CatoRockwell]

Just jumping in here, Public education is a state/local function, it is not a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

[cockerpunk]

And so I'm explained... And yet so far you and DRG have yet to explain any other solution.

I also have to find humor in the fact that you have to spew out all of these big fanciful words and explanations to try and make yourself look so intellectual... Hell he did it with SIMPLETON...

Tell me this ole wise one who knows, sees, and hears all....

Do you think that the passing of laws by the government to which the government is exempt from following is proper/constitutional?

Is that simple enough?

DM

that's because there isn't a solution, as i already said.

healthcare costs will go up. period. our only hope to lower them will be to spread the payments out over the whole nation, alla some kind of socialist law. this law, not that good IMO.

but even if you could do it right, that really won't cut out much cost.

the only way to lower healthcare costs - less healthcare. thats just the world we live in.

[DevilMan]

that's because there isn't a solution, as i already said.

healthcare costs will go up. period. our only hope to lower them will be to spread the payments out over the whole nation, alla some kind of socialist law. this law, not that good IMO.

but even if you could do it right, that really won't cut out much cost.

the only way to lower healthcare costs - less healthcare. thats just the world we live in.

So how do you figure that putting a price tag on services as not being a solution? Meaning if at the hospital entrance there is a "menu" MRI $500, XRay $200, Cast On Arm/Leg $100...

Meaning set a standard fee for services. This would keep the hospital from charging those with NO insurance $100 and those WITH insurance $500. That would cause the insurance companies to be able to lower their rates/prices/deductibles/etc. Now WILL they? That would be up to them. BUT, if there were rules put in place that prevented them from gouging everyone by setting a set limit on what they can charge for X dollar in coverage then it would level out. Why does 1 person with $50K coverage pay $500/month and someone else with $50K coverage pay $750? Why are companies allowed to run "credit checks" on you before they let you buy from them? So they can see what you make and see how much they can stick you for. It seems you are all for this One and All plan, and yet you say there is no solution? Is there a problem? Then YES there IS A SOLUTION!

Throwing your hands up and saying Gov Knows Best and they are the only solution is just insane.

The way to make paintball a safer sport is to have fewer players.

The way to make cars safer is to build less of them.

The way to make statistics/numbers go down is to have less of them.

Lovely plan! Really...

DM

[drg]

Do you think that the passing of laws by the government to which the government is exempt from following

What do you mean by this?

[chafnerjr]

@DM... they will never understand that government it supposed to protect our freedom. Not give us which bit's they find best for us. I can't even get drg to comment on the multiple time that I've brought the very simple text of the constitution into this.

[teufelhunden]

Why are companies allowed to run "credit checks" on you before they let you buy from them? So they can see what you make and see how much they can stick you for.


Have you ever looked at a credit report? "What you make" doesn't appear anywhere.

[DevilMan]

What do you mean by this?

Should government officials be exempt from having to follow the same laws that they come up with to force onto us? Or should they be allowed to keep their own little plan and let the rest of the populace deal with this bill?

[DevilMan]

Have you ever looked at a credit report? "What you make" doesn't appear anywhere.

bwahahahaa.... You are right... So I guess there is no real reason as to why they run it every time you apply for a loan, go and get insurance, apply for a job, or any other reason is there? I know it don't say what you make! But man... to explain things.. I swear.... Let me put it in baby steps....

I have a car.... It's one of the 3 primary colors. It's not Red or Green.

What color is it?

DM

[cockerpunk]

So how do you figure that putting a price tag on services as not being a solution? Meaning if at the hospital entrance there is a "menu" MRI $500, XRay $200, Cast On Arm/Leg $100...

Meaning set a standard fee for services. This would keep the hospital from charging those with NO insurance $100 and those WITH insurance $500. That would cause the insurance companies to be able to lower their rates/prices/deductibles/etc. Now WILL they? That would be up to them. BUT, if there were rules put in place that prevented them from gouging everyone by setting a set limit on what they can charge for X dollar in coverage then it would level out. Why does 1 person with $50K coverage pay $500/month and someone else with $50K coverage pay $750? Why are companies allowed to run "credit checks" on you before they let you buy from them? So they can see what you make and see how much they can stick you for. It seems you are all for this One and All plan, and yet you say there is no solution? Is there a problem? Then YES there IS A SOLUTION!

Throwing your hands up and saying Gov Knows Best and they are the only solution is just insane.

The way to make paintball a safer sport is to have fewer players.

The way to make cars safer is to build less of them.

The way to make statistics/numbers go down is to have less of them.

Lovely plan! Really...

DM

they have to charge those with insurgence more becuase they have to cover there legal responsibilities to treat anyone, even if they can't pay. taht time, equipment and staff doesn't work for free, so those that can pay, have to pay more to cover those that can't pay.

those who are healthy pay for the sick, those that have insurance pay for those without insurance.

thats how the health care system works, and unless you can change that, then you aren't gonna cut costs.



i think this thread is exposing your lack of understanding in pretty much ... how the world works.

[chafnerjr]

Just jumping in here, Public education is a state/local function, it is not a power delegated to the federal government by the constitution.
You are quite correct. Education is considered a state's or people's right. Most states have that spelled out in their respective state constitutions and the taxes for such are assessed and collected in their respective states by their own laws.

P.S. This is why you can still home school your children.

[DevilMan]

they have to charge those with insurgence more becuase they have to cover there legal responsibilities to treat anyone, even if they can't pay. taht time, equipment and staff doesn't work for free, so those that can pay, have to pay more to cover those that can't pay.

those who are healthy pay for the sick, those that have insurance pay for those without insurance.

thats how the health care system works, and unless you can change that, then you aren't gonna cut costs.



i think this thread is exposing your lack of understanding in pretty much ... how the world works.

And now I don't know how the world works.... :rofl: Holy hell!!!!

And to think I used to think you did alright on your PB testing stuff that ya did...

Yep.. that's me... Mr. Don't Know How The World Works... Tis freakin hilarious! Comin from a youngin like you that KNOWS I'm sure how it all fits together.

You just can't grasp it can you? Insurance is YOUR choice. You could pick and choose what you wanted to do with it. In how much you want to carry and how much it will cost you.

You have yet to answer the questions I posed to you several posts back.

And yet, I don't know... hmmm.... alright... sure...

DM

[chafnerjr]

i think this thread is exposing your lack of understanding in pretty much ... how the world works.
Hey, we should all be a bit more friendly here regardless of our disagreements. After all, this is how democracy works. Let's be fair, NO ONE in this thread runs an insurance company, a hospital, or holds political office (that i know of). Not a one of us could even qualify as an expert in any one of these categories. My point is that no one here could solve this problem by themselves. There are far too many facets and if anyone thinks that know it all they're lying even to themselves. I suggest that we continue to educate each other with this in mind moving forward. :cheers:

[DevilMan]

Here ya go mr know it all....

Insurance that you get costs XXXX dollars. You pay that over the years and never claim anything. Where does the money go?

It goes to pay for those that come into the hospital without insurance? WRONG!!!

You see the company is a private business. Oh wait... I don't know how it works.. that's right...

The insurance is NOT required to pay to the hospital for anyone that they don't have on a policy.

So then someone without comes in... And they get charged 1/5 the amount that the person with insurance gets charged for the same treatment. And then when the person WITH comes in, the hospital raises the price that they charge out to the rest of the insurance companies to make up for it? How exactly is this right or logical?

AGAIN, if there were set fees as to what each hospital charged for services, hell they can set them themselves. Do you not think it would reduce the costs? Have you ever heard of shopping? Or I guess since you know how the world works, you don't have to worry about money either... my bad.

DM

[drg]

Should government officials be exempt from having to follow the same laws that they come up with to force onto us? Or should they be allowed to keep their own little plan and let the rest of the populace deal with this bill?

Exactly what law are you talking about? Be specific.


So then someone without comes in... And they get charged 1/5 the amount that the person with insurance gets charged for the same treatment. And then when the person WITH comes in, the hospital raises the price that they charge out to the rest of the insurance companies to make up for it? How exactly is this right or logical?

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, but this is not how things work. People without insurance get charged WAY more than people with insurance. Insurance companies negotiate special rates with providers, since they are guaranteed payers with lots of leverage.

This is part of the issue with the current system, the people with least ability to pay get stuck with the largest bills, which they then default on, which raises costs for others. That's a part of the rationale behind universal coverage. Right *now* the system is unfair, the legislation works to correct that.

[chafnerjr]

People without insurance get charged WAY more than people with insurance. Insurance companies negotiate special rates with providers, since they are guaranteed payers with lots of leverage.


Sorry this is simply incorrect. I have health insurance through my place of employment (which offers 3 plans). Because health insurance is too much to cover my wife we pay cash for all of her medical needs. Trust me the cash rate in the three hospitals around me was significantly lower. Call me on it if you want as I will not share my medical records with you all (as much as I like you).

[cockerpunk]

Hey, we should all be a bit more friendly here regardless of our disagreements. After all, this is how democracy works. Let's be fair, NO ONE in this thread runs an insurance company, a hospital, or holds political office (that i know of). Not a one of us could even qualify as an expert in any one of these categories. My point is that no one here could solve this problem by themselves. There are far too many facets and if anyone thinks that know it all they're lying even to themselves. I suggest that we continue to educate each other with this in mind moving forward. :cheers:

you know that's all fine and dandy, but simply understanding of how the healthcare system works should probably be a pre-requisite in forming an opinion on laws regarding it.

otherwise he really is just using the argument from ignorance that i spelled out before.

of course fox news doesn't follow that rule of thumb, so i guess its easy to see where the fundamentalist dogmatic rhetoric comes from.

[drg]

Sorry this is simply incorrect. I have health insurance through my place of employment (which offers 3 plans). Because health insurance is too much to cover my wife we pay cash for all of her medical needs. Trust me the cash rate in the three hospitals around me was significantly lower. Call me on it if you want as I will not share my medical records with you all (as much as I like you).

More than what? Most insurance statements contain both the normal cost and negotiated rate, which are very different (and sometimes costs are waived altogether).

If your hospital is actually charging you less for cash-and-carry than the insurance reimbursement rate, I would be very surprised. After all, why would insurance pay more than an individual, when it pays for many individuals? If this were actually the case then insurance would choose to have you billed cash rate, and pay that amount.

Either your billing is misleading or you're reading it wrong.

[secretweaponevan]

The U.S. National Debt is at $12.8 Trillion Dollars.
The U.S. Gross Domestic Product is at $14.2 Trillion Dollars.

We can't afford anything right now that doesn't improve the economy. I believe all of these new expenses/taxes are being done with definite purpose.

[drg]

The U.S. National Debt is at $12.8 Trillion Dollars.
The U.S. Gross Domestic Product is at $14.2 Trillion Dollars.

We can't afford anything right now that doesn't improve the economy. I believe all of these new expenses/taxes are being done with definite purpose.

In absolute terms, that's not actually true. That's like saying if you have a mortgage for ~90% of your yearly income, you can't afford anything. You can afford whatever you can get financing for, technically.

That said, and I'm not sure if this was your point, most of the spending expansion is in fact occurring to improve the economy. The problem is that so much spending was done in the Reagen through Bush years under Republican presidents that went to worsening the economy.

[DevilMan]

In absolute terms, that's not actually true. That's like saying if you have a mortgage for ~90% of your yearly income, you can't afford anything. You can afford whatever you can get financing for, technically.

That said, and I'm not sure if this was your point, most of the spending expansion is in fact occurring to improve the economy. The problem is that so much spending was done in the Reagen through Bush years under Republican presidents that went to worsening the economy.

So here we have it... An Obama supporter that can't stand for his man to be talked about like he don't have a clue...

DM

[cockerpunk]

The U.S. National Debt is at $12.8 Trillion Dollars.
The U.S. Gross Domestic Product is at $14.2 Trillion Dollars.

We can't afford anything right now that doesn't improve the economy. I believe all of these new expenses/taxes are being done with definite purpose.

say that to the what ... 3 trillion dumped into the worthless sands of foreign nations.

at least we saw SOME good come of the stimulus and back bailouts, even if they weren't perfect. also keep in mind tarp was signed into law by those ever so holy republicans.

[drg]

So here we have it... An Obama supporter that can't stand for his man to be talked about like he don't have a clue...

DM

Not sure how you figure that from what I posted.

[DevilMan]

Not sure how you figure that from what I posted.

I deduced it from the ANTI Republican notes that you and CP keep popping out there. If you notice there wasn't anything said about Dem/Rep for a good bit of this convo. This isn't about "how GW mucked it up" or how "Lincoln had it under control" this is about TODAY's issue with the healthcare bill.

You and CP can't seem to leave the politics out of it in the sense of name calling and finger pointing.

DM

[DevilMan]

Hey DRG and CP....

Why don't you do this... Look up the local hospital/ER services in your area... call em up and tell them the same thing...

Say I just cut my arm real bad and need to see about getting stitches maybe.

Keep track of what the first words they say are.

You can even go so far as to ask them what it would cost roughly to get 10 stitches if paying out of pocket, and then call back the next day and ask them the same thing only tell them you have insurance and want to know what the price would be because you have to pay the deductible.

Tell me what you come up with...

Since you are calling Chaf on his bills and telling him that he can't read....

Why don't you prove it?

DM

[drg]

I deduced it from the ANTI Republican notes that you and CP keep popping out there. If you notice there wasn't anything said about Dem/Rep for a good bit of this convo. This isn't about "how GW mucked it up" or how "Lincoln had it under control" this is about TODAY's issue with the healthcare bill.

Being that the deficit issue was brought up, it is entirely germane. My statement was anti-Republican inasmuch as the facts are anti-Republican; I just stated what happened. Do note that we have had only one Democratic president before this one, since Reagan. Republican presidents are responsible for about 10 trillion of our 12 trillion dollar debt, and their corporate-friendly policies have hurt the middle class.


Why don't you prove it?

Don't have to do any of that to prove it. On your statement is your charge, the insurance rate and the insurance payment. Your non-insurance charge is NEVER less than the insurance rate.

This is a very typical situation:
http://www.cohospitalprices.org/prices/index.html

What you will see is that on a per-treatment basis, cost to insurers is WAY lower. The only time it is higher is for complicated illnesses that require a lot of care -- without insurance, people simply opt for less care (and of course suffer the consequences).

Now hospitals do offer cash discounts, but these discounts will almost never exceed the insurance discount rate for payors who can afford the charge. Again if it did, insurance companies would leverage them. Need-based discounts are invariably tied to government subsidies (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cms.hhs.gov%2FAcuteInpatientP PS%2Fdownloads%2FFAQ_Uninsured.pdf&ei=y8m-S_iVOImUnwew8NS9Cg&usg=AFQjCNEDW353E9X3rpHmGgfKDUOeWNS3OA&sig2=lSiuv3GYQMzw8oo9qZ-H3A), so that doesn't go very far to prove any case against government intervention.

[teufelhunden]

bwahahahaa.... You are right... So I guess there is no real reason as to why they run it every time you apply for a loan, go and get insurance, apply for a job, or any other reason is there? I know it don't say what you make! But man... to explain things.. I swear.... Let me put it in baby steps....

I have a car.... It's one of the 3 primary colors. It's not Red or Green.

What color is it?

DM

Have you ever seen a credit report? Either your own or one that you as an interested party can run?

I guess not.

Credit reports are exactly that - reports of your current and prior financing arrangements (credit cards, mortgages, car notes, leases, consumer loans, yadda yadda). They're run when you get a loan or when you get insurance because the lender and insurer want to determine the risk of you not paying. So they look into the history of just such a thing.

Employers look at credit reports for a couple of reasons. Someone with huge debts outstanding will be more subject to pressures to "do bad" - embezzle company funds, take bribes, whatever it is. They want to avoid that. They also want someone who has demonstrated personal responsibility, especially in decision making roles.

If you can back into how much I make by whats on my credit report, I'll poop my pants. There is absolutely zero correlation. I work with people and their money every day of my life (well, every work day, which this time of year is every day of my life). There are rich people with zero debt, rich people with obscene amounts of debt, poor people with big debt, and poor people with no debt. So please, explain to me how you could divine someone's income from their credit report?

You may be able to determine "rich" if you see a $10,000,000 note to "Big-f'in-yachts, Inc." but even that is only a guess.

I'm with you a lot of the way on health care, government spending, taxation, yadda yadda. But people like you do the right a disservice. Same way people see Cindy Sheehan or one of the other fringe lefties and laugh at them (vocal minority type of deal), they do the same with the right. There's a growing perception in this country that the right is a bunch of lunatic confederates with 400 guns, 4 teeth, and 4,000 bible verses ready to be spouted at a moment's notice. Don't feed into it. Gotta reverse that, or no matter how bad Obama and his crew does, we're going to be stuck, because nobody wants to vote for Pat Buchanan and his militia. At least, not enough people to do anything about it.

[cockerpunk]

someone in the right wing with sense!

i praise you man, you are the future of the republican party, it will just take another 5 years for them to figure that out. right now they have a big "no moderates allowed" sign on the door. and that is going to cost them big time in the next elections.

[teufelhunden]

someone in the right wing with sense!

i praise you man, you are the future of the republican party, it will just take another 5 years for them to figure that out. right now they have a big "no moderates allowed" sign on the door. and that is going to cost them big time in the next elections.

I don't actually think they do - look who they sent up in 2008. In 2000, McCain was derided as being a leftist in right wing clothes (which I think he is to an extent - some of his voting history treads well past moderate/centrist). I think the party at a national level understands it. I think it's the message board/on the street/whatever bullies of the right that don't get it. I went to a tea party last year and it was pretty much a bunch of normal, levelheaded people... except for the few screaming nutjobs. I don't listen to talk radio much anymore, but what I have it still seems like the hosts are somewhat accepting of moderates, but you will have a psychopath caller get past the screener from time to time. Those are the people that are going to screw us. As I said, the vocal minority.

DevilMan and your ilk: A lot of us are just as conservative as you. But we have all figured out that we can't go from a country that elected Barack HUSSEIN (lol) Obama/Barry Sotero (lol) in 2008 to a country that is disbanding government in 2012. You guys need to realize the following: if we want to get any of what we want, we need to do it in steps. I don't see 2010 as another 1994, and I don't see 2012 as another 1980 (quite yet). We will need both to actually do anything, and we will need to support candidates that are in the fight to win, not in the fight to stay in the fight after the next election.

We need you to temper your rhetoric and make our side accepting of whomever wishes to support it. Stop doing stuff like screaming about how public schooling should be pay to play. That's moronic and you make us all look like idiots. You're pushing votes to the left... even you guys can realize that's counter productive. Right?

[DevilMan]

What's funny is I'm more of a liberal and Dem than a Rep... bwahahahaa.... So you talking about how RIGHT I am, is just hilarious.

I say I'm more Dem... means I'm middle of the road with a left lean. I think we can all agree that extreme one way or the other is the issue here. Middle of the road has been and always will be the best way to go. You will never be able to please everyone. But that's not what this is about. It's about pleasing the majority.

I feel that the way they are trying to do this health care crap is just that... CRAP! Of course I also feel that bailing out PRIVATE companies like banks and insurance and car companies with OUR tax money is wrong! If a company wants to fleece it's customers for 20 years, make BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of PROFIT! (Note this is CLEARED money) and then have a few bad years and OUR tax money goes bailing them out just to save the company, jobs, etc I find that wrong! You know what could have happened? They could have REDUCED COSTS! They could have SOLD PROPERTY LIKE AIRPLANES!

I know that the "bailout" saved lots of jobs and what not... but there is more to the problem than just that. If they overall costs could be reduced as in how much people were paid, how much the company had to pay OSHA every day, how much union dues/fees are and the like, then it would have been loads better. And it would help bring industry back to US soil.

I mean I'm a "private" individual. Where's my bailout when I lose my job, my truck, my house? Why is it special treatment for one big company with thousands of employees and yet nothing for thousands more individuals?

And if you care to know I'm not Right Or Left! I'm more for liberty and freedom of choice. I think that making laws EITHER way is incorrect.

DM

[BigEvil]

someone in the right wing with sense!

i praise you man, you are the future of the republican party, it will just take another 5 years for them to figure that out. right now they have a big "no moderates allowed" sign on the door. and that is going to cost them big time in the next elections.


They ran the biggest moderate on the planet in the last presidential election, and that worked out well didn't it?

Please, we have enough outsiders trying to determine our candidates as it is.

[cockerpunk]

They ran the biggest moderate on the planet in the last presidential election, and that worked out well didn't it?

Please, we have enough outsiders trying to determine our candidates as it is.

when rush limbah wins the poll for the leader of the republican party, your no longer a moderate party.

and lets face it, palin was the one who lost mccains election for him.

[chafnerjr]

More than what?
If your hospital is actually charging you less for cash-and-carry than the insurance reimbursement rate, I would be very surprised. After all, why would insurance pay more than an individual, when it pays for many individuals? If this were actually the case then insurance would choose to have you billed cash rate, and pay that amount.

Either your billing is misleading or you're reading it wrong.
You can think whatever you like and the insurance company can print anything that they like. I pay much less without insurance than get's charged to my ins. company. I know what I pay in cash for my wife vs. what my ins. pays for me. I don't really care to prove it to you because you can find out yourself (though you won't, you'd rather take a web sites word for it or try to justify why it couldn't happen). After sitting here bashing everything but the gov, I don't see how you could trust any paperwork from either the Ins. company or the Hospitals. Mind you that prescription medication is a different story.

Also seeing as this is turning into that old Obama/lib/socialist vs. everything else thread I'm going to bail out. You won't listen to a single piece of evidence, debate, opinion, or even the constitution. From what everyone's said about you being up to intelligent debate I expected better.

[drg]

You can think whatever you like and the insurance company can print anything that they like. I pay much less without insurance than get's charged to my ins. company. I know what I pay in cash for my wife vs. what my ins. pays for me. I don't really care to prove it to you because you can find out yourself (though you won't, you'd rather take a web sites word for it or try to justify why it couldn't happen).

Likewise you can say whatever you want and refuse to back it up with any proof and no one will, conveniently, be able to prove you wrong. Although, no, the insurance company can't print anything it likes, it can print the real figures or be a target for fraud prosecution. You are under no such oversight.

Again if you are really in that situation, it's going to be a need-based/indigency policy issue, which is outside of the realm of what we are discussing and is a strong argument FOR government intervention (which makes such things possible through subsidies).

Normal, non-need based cash discounts are in the 20-30% range, as you can see insurance negotiated rates are in the 50-75% range.

[athomas]

This is a very typical situation:
http://www.cohospitalprices.org/prices/index.html

What you will see is that on a per-treatment basis, cost to insurers is WAY lower. The only time it is higher is for complicated illnesses that require a lot of care -- without insurance, people simply opt for less care (and of course suffer the consequences).Interesting. I knew there was a large number of people that did not have/use insurance, but, those numbers are really big. The hospitals charge more than the insurance pays out. That either means the insurance companies don't pay the full amount of the claim submitted by individuals, or the hospital charges individuals more than they charge the insurance companies.

[DevilMan]

Not really trying to stir the pot here... Honest I'm not.

To put it bluntly... I am for abortion. I believe that it can be a much better alternative than the other option. I won't get into what's right, wrong or otherwise about here other than to say, I think it should be legal and it should be allowed for a woman to have 3 of them. After the 3rd one, she gets fixed for good, so she don't have to worry about it any more. There of course would be special circumstances for everything but they would basically be based on police reports and rape issues. Just being careless is not the same.

Anyway, I do feel it should be legal, and I do feel that it IS a medical procedure. I don't know which of you feel the same, but it is stated that the funds from this healthcare bill can NOT be used for such procedures. This is where I got that information ~> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100410/ap_on_el_ho/us_stupak_retiring


Stupak had little national profile before the health care debate. He led a group of anti-abortion Democrats who held out against the legislation until President Barack Obama agreed to sign an executive order ensuring that federal funds would not be used for abortions.

That to me is just insane. For one abortions CAN be life saving. And yet, it's now decided that it won't be covered?

Anyway, again... I'm not trying to stir the pot, but since this is part of the discussion I think its asinine that it's not something that would be covered.

DM

[drg]

The Hyde Amendment is the relevant legislation that covers this:
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/f/HydeAmendment.htm

It does contain exceptions for mother's health. I'm not in favor of such restrictions; low income women should have access to the same legal services as everyone else.

[DevilMan]

The Hyde Amendment is the relevant legislation that covers this:
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/f/HydeAmendment.htm

It does contain exceptions for mother's health. I'm not in favor of such restrictions; low income women should have access to the same legal services as everyone else.

Are you talking about my restrictions? Or the ones that the Hyde Amendment covers?

Mine would be universal for all types. I think you mean the HA part. And if anything lower income persons should have more access to the services than it being the other way around.

I really don't understand how people can think that putting more burdens on someone as well as society is making the world a better place. Especially when these are the people that refuse to adopt kids that are already here.

Meh... anyway...

DM

[drg]

Are you talking about my restrictions? Or the ones that the Hyde Amendment covers?

Mine would be universal for all types. I think you mean the HA part. And if anything lower income persons should have more access to the services than it being the other way around.

I really don't understand how people can think that putting more burdens on someone as well as society is making the world a better place. Especially when these are the people that refuse to adopt kids that are already here.

Meh... anyway...

DM

I'm not in favor of any restrictions, but in the quote I was specifically talking about the Hyde Amendment restrictions. I don't think abortion is ever done as a whim or recklessly, at least on the part of the woman. There could possibly be outside pressures on the woman, and the less free her decision is, the more vulnerable the woman is to that pressure.

[BigEvil]

when rush limbah wins the poll for the leader of the republican party, your no longer a moderate party.

and lets face it, palin was the one who lost mccains election for him.


BS son. The only reason why he chose her was so that the republican base (which pretty much hates him) would come out to vote. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have.

[cockerpunk]

BS son. The only reason why he chose her was so that the republican base (which pretty much hates him) would come out to vote. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have.

well limbah did win the poll of republicans that he was the defacto leader of the GOP. even Steele (the actual chairmen of the party) said so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU9FHgGPlds


palin convinced more people to not vote for mccain then chose to vote for him. my father a die hard republican and huge mccain supporter couldn't vote for him becuase of palin, and i too, as a moderate, was a huge fan of mccain. i have read his books, and i think he would have made a good president, but couldn't vote for him becuase palin is such an idiot.

they lost that election for many reasons. palin being a big one. the other big one is that the "mavrick" once he was the candidate, stopped being a maverick and started being a neo-con. your supposed to go the other way, be the lock step republican during the primaries, then become the centrist maverick after you got the nomination to win the middle ground. palin took away the primary criticism of obama, his inexperience, becuase she is a beauty queen, an inexperienced politician, and a complete idiot.

it was a big strategic error picking palin, and that combined with other critical mistakes, made for the obama win.

[BigEvil]

well limbah did win the poll of republicans that he was the defacto leader of the GOP. even Steele (the actual chairmen of the party) said so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU9FHgGPlds


palin convinced more people to not vote for mccain then chose to vote for him. my father a die hard republican and huge mccain supporter


I just stopped reading the rest of your post right there. That comment is an oxymoron. McCain's record proves that he has gone against Republican values his entire carrier. They invented the term R.I.N.O pretty much because of him.

Funny how he seems to be leaning more to the right nowadays. Then gets Pailin to come stump for him in Arizona. :tard:

[cockerpunk]

I just stopped reading the rest of your post right there. That comment is an oxymoron. McCain's record proves that he has gone against Republican values his entire carrier. They invented the term R.I.N.O pretty much because of him.

Funny how he seems to be leaning more to the right nowadays. Then gets Pailin to come stump for him in Arizona. :tard:

thats becuase mccain is a normal right winger, and your innablity to see that only proves my point from before - the right wing is SO far right wing that centrists are now socialists. and being slightly on the left makes you a full blown communist.

so you just proved my point, the Republican party is no longer a mainstream or right party, they have no moderates, and they don't want any moderates. they literally burn moderates alive becuase they are not "pure." including of course, anyone with half a brain.

hell, the institute for the next American century (ie the neo-con think tank) just fired someone becuase he said that the way the right wing is going about its protests of the health care bill is counterproductive. opps, that means your not intellectually pure enough to be a Republican if you don't support the brick throwing, name calling, threats and actions of the protesters are good.

NO MODERATES ALLOWED - the new republican mantra.

[BigEvil]

thats becuase mccain is a normal right winger, and your innablity to see that only proves my point from before - the right wing is SO far right wing that centrists are now socialists. and being slightly on the left makes you a full blown communist.

so you just proved my point, the Republican party is no longer a mainstream or right party, they have no moderates, and they don't want any moderates. they literally burn moderates alive becuase they are not "pure." including of course, anyone with half a brain.

hell, the institute for the next American century (ie the neo-con think tank) just fired someone becuase he said that the way the right wing is going about its protests of the health care bill is counterproductive. opps, that means your not intellectually pure enough to be a Republican if you don't support the brick throwing, name calling, threats and actions of the protesters.


If by 'main-stream' you mean "state-ist", than yes, you are right.

[drg]

If by 'main-stream' you mean "state-ist", than yes, you are right.

I always chuckle at the charges of "statism" leveled against various people at various times. America didn't get to where it is because of a weak state, and it doesn't project power worldwide based on the individual unconnected efforts of Americans. A strong state is essential to the American reality. Decentralization is weakness ... this is why we created nations in the first place.

[cockerpunk]

I always chuckle at the charges of "statism" leveled against various people at various times. America didn't get to where it is because of a weak state, and it doesn't project power worldwide based on the individual unconnected efforts of Americans. A strong state is essential to the American reality. Decentralization is weakness ... this is why we created nations in the first place.

as much as i am a federalist, the federal system needs to recognize its flaws. government isn't the solution, its a necessary evil.

[BigEvil]

I always chuckle at the charges of "statism" leveled against various people at various times. America didn't get to where it is because of a weak state, and it doesn't project power worldwide based on the individual unconnected efforts of Americans. A strong state is essential to the American reality. Decentralization is weakness ... this is why we created nations in the first place.



Statism, as it now often used is meant to refer to the 'soft despotism' being imposed by the gov't which is a direct result of the continued of intervention in personal, social and economic matters. NOT that we need to 'decentralize'.

[cockerpunk]

Statism, as it now often used is meant to refer to the 'soft despotism' being imposed by the gov't which is a direct result of the continued of intervention in personal, social and economic matters. NOT that we need to 'decentralize'.

who is intervening our personal, social and economic matters?

personal - republicans with gay marriage, with abortion, and with the patriot act

social - again, republicans, with gay marriage, abortion, re-writing American history, and theological laws based on the christian religion. also the torture issues and git-mo, changing what the American justice system fundamentally is about.

economic - again, the republicans with the the bank bailouts, with massive deficit spending in worthless wars.




the ONLY thing obama and the dems have done on any of those issues is the stimulus, and the healthcare bill. you can't blame the democrats for close to anything compared to bush and the neo-cons on any of those issues.

and i'll got tit for tat on obama spending vs bush spending (esp since the stimulus is actually smaller then the amount spent in iraq), at least obama spent the money on who he is getting it from - us. bush spent it on his oil buddies, and in a country which will NEVER pay a single cent of it back.

neither party will stop the spending, but at least we can choose where the money is being spent. in the USA, or on worthless foreign nations that wont pay a cent back. and we get to keep the personal and social freedom.

[going_home]

when rush limbah wins the poll for the leader of the republican party, your no longer a moderate party.

and lets face it, palin was the one who lost mccains election for him.


The problem with the Republican party is the fact that they are Democrat Lite, or as you put it "moderate".

The people dont want business as usual in Washington with the shell game thats been going on now for years.
Both parties are the same. The people see this. Garbage out (Republicans), garbage in (Democrats).

The people want accountability and a balanced budget and neither party cares what the people want.
Thus the Tea Party movement, fiscal conservatism is what the heartland wants, and the majority of citizens.

So "W" started the bailout fiasco and "O" brings it to new heights taking over private companies ie GM Chrysler multiple banks and now the latest is they want health care workers unionized.
You think hospitals have problems now wait till the unions own them.

Next is amnesty for all lawbreakers/illegal aliens because "O" knows he will lose the next election since he ignored the peoples wishes in the power grab so called health care bill.
He has lost the independent vote that got him elected and he knows it.

America is broken.
And if you think any of the politicians in either party are trying to fix it,
either you are a koolaid drinking skull full of mush youngster or you just
arent paying attention.

The train will run off the tracks before O's time in office is up.
Its by design the economy will crash and the money will be changed.

Good luck with all the "W" hatred and "O" love because they are brothers and are of one mind in what they want America to be.

And oh yeah, in before the lock ;)

[cockerpunk]

The problem with the Republican party is the fact that they are Democrat Lite, or as you put it "moderate".

The people dont want business as usual in Washington with the shell game thats been going on now for years.
Both parties are the same. The people see this. Garbage out (Republicans), garbage in (Democrats).

The people want accountability and a balanced budget and neither party cares what the people want.
Thus the Tea Party movement, fiscal conservatism is what the heartland wants, and the majority of citizens.

So "W" started the bailout fiasco and "O" brings it to new heights taking over private companies ie GM Chrysler multiple banks and now the latest is they want health care workers unionized.
You think hospitals have problems now wait till the unions own them.

Next is amnesty for all lawbreakers/illegal aliens because "O" knows he will lose the next election since he ignored the peoples wishes in the power grab so called health care bill.
He has lost the independent vote that got him elected and he knows it.

America is broken.
And if you think any of the politicians in either party are trying to fix it,
either you are a koolaid drinking skull full of mush youngster or you just
arent paying attention.

The train will run off the tracks before O's time in office is up.
Its by design the economy will crash and the money will be changed.

Good luck with all the "W" hatred and "O" love because they are brothers and are of one mind in what they want America to be.

And oh yeah, in before the lock ;)

case and point. the ultra right wing republicans being called democrat-lite. the political spectrum is so warped it doesn't even make sense.

like i said, i don't think any politician is out there to govern properly, but at least you can pick where they spend the money they take. i have very little love for obama, but at the same time he is hardly even close to socialist, he is actually a centrist for sure, expanding the afgan war, allowing oil drilling .... he is hardly even a liberal. the mis-information and slat out there is ridiculous.

i am disappointed with obama, but to blame him for this stuff, is simply absurd. W and the current crop of republicans are not the solution. they will take your freedom and your money and spend it on worthless ****. the tea party is absurd and immature.

the only half sane party out there is the democrats. i wish the libertarians would pull there heads out of there asses, becuase they are the ideology that i subscribe to.

[drg]

like i said, i don't think any politician is out there to govern properly,

I know of at least one senator, Bernie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnKh6B2cMw) Sanders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYrhh935h0I) . The house progressive caucus is pretty good on the issues as well. These people get it.

[cockerpunk]

I know of at least one senator, Bernie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnKh6B2cMw) Sanders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYrhh935h0I) . The house progressive caucus is pretty good on the issues as well. These people get it.

oddly enough, the title of the second video is straight from the likes of adam smith. he always said, a company should never get to large to fail.

[BigEvil]

case and point. the ultra right wing republicans being called democrat-lite. the political spectrum is so warped it doesn't even make sense.

like i said, i don't think any politician is out there to govern properly, but at least you can pick where they spend the money they take. i have very little love for obama, but at the same time he is hardly even close to socialist, he is actually a centrist for sure, expanding the afgan war, allowing oil drilling .... he is hardly even a liberal. the mis-information and slat out there is ridiculous.

i am disappointed with obama, but to blame him for this stuff, is simply absurd. W and the current crop of republicans are not the solution. they will take your freedom and your money and spend it on worthless ****. the tea party is absurd and immature.

the only half sane party out there is the democrats. i wish the libertarians would pull there heads out of there asses, becuase they are the ideology that i subscribe to.

Geezus kid - DEMOCRAT is a far from Libertarian as Anna Nicole Smith is from Mother Teresa.

Your concept of FAR RIGHT, Moderate, ect is WAY off base.

[Lohman446]

I find it amusing that we now blame all problems on a sitting president. Apparently the other two branches do nothing. Political gridlock (one party instantly disagreeing with the other over EVERY detail) is a relatively new game - for most of our governments existence both parties actually worked to some degree together.

Then again, I look back through this and I see someone flat out asking me "do you support it or not". I know why really. If I was of the same opinion they were chances are my comments and thoughts would have been valid, had I not been they would have been instantly invalidated.

Some of you, and a great deal of our politicians today. debate like children. We care not about the substance of someone's argument or thoughts but only about the final outcome. We weigh the value or validity of those thoughts and arguments only on the final outcome, and if it is in agreement with ours. Those who disagree are instantly attacked, those who agree instantly uplifted.

[cockerpunk]

Geezus kid - DEMOCRAT is a far from Libertarian as Anna Nicole Smith is from Mother Teresa.

Your concept of FAR RIGHT, Moderate, ect is WAY off base.

you would actually be surprised how liberal and libertarians are linked. libratarians are conservative on the fiscal side, and liberal on the social side. unlike the modern republican party which is liberal on the fiscal side, and conservative on the social side. the democrats would be libertarians if you can get them to spend less money.

so no, the democrats are not very far from the libertarians. they are closer to libertarianism then the republicans are right now.

[Frizzle Fry]

they are closer to libertarianism then the republicans are right now.

I can't help but disagree with that.

[cockerpunk]

I can't help but disagree with that.

k, so the big government, big spending, get us into foreign wars, spy on our people, take our personal freedoms away, mandate religion on us, and get lobbies rich Republicans are libertarian in what sense?

Powell agrees with me - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/28/powell_gop_should_respond_to_limbaughs_outrageous_ comments.html

[Frizzle Fry]

k, so the big government, big spending, get us into foreign wars, spy on our people, take our personal freedoms away, mandate religion on us, and get lobbies rich Republicans are libertarian in what sense?

First off, as you just stated in your last post that Dems are big spenders.

Second, mandating religion? What planet are you on?

Third, I'm not saying either party is even close to libertarian. I'd say they're about equidistant. The difference between the far right spying on our people and the far left spying on our people is that the left tends to do it under the guise of social programs whereas the right announces it as a "defense plan". Personal freedoms are robbed almost evenly by both sides, one does it with a smile and the other with a scowl.

[cockerpunk]

First off, as you just stated in your last post that Dems are big spenders.

Second, mandating religion? What planet are you on?

Third, I'm not saying either party is even close to libertarian. I'd say they're about equidistant. The difference between the far right spying on our people and the far left spying on our people is that the left tends to do it under the guise of social programs whereas the right announces it as a "defense plan". Personal freedoms are robbed almost evenly by both sides, one does it with a smile and the other with a scowl.

they are both big spenders. they just have different hobbies, one is our country, the other is foreign counties.

republicans are constantly mandating and encouraging evangelical faith for all of us. first it was intelligent design, now its "teach the controversy of evolution." (implying there even is one - lol) they are actually rewriting the test books of our public schools to remove tomas jefferson in order to portray our founding fathers as christian (they weren't). constantly trying to push that the USA is a christian nation - again, we are not, we even signed a treaty stating this fact. they call judges who support and rule in favor of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment as "activists" esp in regards to the ten commandments.


personal freedoms are not being stolen by the democrats in almost any cases. do they want to tell you who you can live and love? do they want to tell you what you can do behind closed doors with consenting adults? do they want to make medical decisions for every women in the country? do they want to have your banker spy on you and your money (they already passed that one in the patriot act)? do they allow the government to take your medical and financial records at will (again, already passed)?

no, the democrats want to spread the bill of the nations health care over the entire nation, probably becuase the entire nation uses the healthcare system, some just don't pay for it. which is actually anti-handouts, and anti-entitlement. don't tell fox news that though.

woop-dee-doo

like i said, the only half sane party out there - the democrats.

[Frizzle Fry]

they are both big spenders. they just have different hobbies, one is our country, the other is foreign counties.

republicans are constantly mandating and encouraging evangelical faith for all of us. first it was intelligent design, now its "teach the controversy of evolution." (implying there even is one - lol) they are actually rewriting the test books of our public schools to remove tomas jefferson in order to portray our founding fathers as christian (they weren't). constantly trying to push that the USA is a christian nation - again, we are not, we even signed a treaty stating this fact. they call judges who support and rule in favor of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment as "activists" esp in regards to the ten commandments.


personal freedoms are not being stolen by the democrats in almost any cases. do they want to tell you who you can live and love? do they want to tell you what you can do behind closed doors with consenting adults? do they want to make medical decisions for every women in the country? do they want to have your banker spy on you and your money (they already passed that one in the patriot act)? do they allow the government to take your medical and financial records at will (again, already passed)?

no, the democrats want to spread the bill of the nations health care over the entire nation, probably becuase the entire nation uses the healthcare system, some just don't pay for it. which is actually anti-handouts, and anti-entitlement. don't tell fox news that though.

woop-dee-doo

like i said, the only half sane party out there - the democrats.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Lohman446]

See CP does it to. He can explain to you all the negatives of one party, gloss over the "they just want personal freedoms" of the other and then explain only one party has any sanity.

This "line drawn in the sand" of our nations politics is not positive

[DevilMan]

See CP does it to. He can explain to you all the negatives of one party, gloss over the "they just want personal freedoms" of the other and then explain only one party has any sanity.

This "line drawn in the sand" of our nations politics is not positive

Glad I'm not the only one that noticed it, but gave up on this discussion when it went the Rep vs Dem... I don't give a rats posterior about either of em... So calling me one or the other in itself just makes whoever does it an idiot. I think ALL of the gov needs a good purge. But when this convo went the way of R vs D, I gave up. That's not what this was a discussion of.

Just love how it "transmorgifies" into it all.

I personally feel that ruling members of both parties are idiots... well most of them. And I agree that LEFT vs RIGHT is NEVER going to solve anything! When are THEY going to learn to meet in the middle on something that we can all benefit from...

Oh well, another day in this life is gone... make the most of what you have left!

DM

[cockerpunk]

See CP does it to. He can explain to you all the negatives of one party, gloss over the "they just want personal freedoms" of the other and then explain only one party has any sanity.

This "line drawn in the sand" of our nations politics is not positive

line drawn in the sand? what line is that? your projecting becuase i drew no line.

rather then making a worthless observation, how about a counter-point?

yeah, thats cause there isn't a counter-point. not one that makes any sense anyway. the repulicans are hardly libertarians. which is ironic becuase Reagan (the republican demi-god) always said that libertarianism is the core of conservatism. of course he made some of the classic problems i already pointed out, mainly with abortion.


let it be clear, i am by no means a democrat, and i dont support the health care bill for the reasons i already posted. but the whole discussion was if the democrats are closer to libertarianism then the republicans, and i think i supported that point well, and no one has a counter-point.

[Lohman446]

like i said, the only half sane party out there - the democrats.

Yeh, thats not a line in the sand or anything. My thoughts on the matter are you can both be wrong. Neither the democratic party, nor the republican party represent libertarianism well at all. As to which one is closer is meaningless. Its like asking is 100 or -100 closer to 0. They are both that far off from the core ideas. Frankly at this point both seem to support big government, big spending, and a government hand in nearly everything.

If we can call some specific programs we can counter argue it all day long

Republicans get abortion / democrats get gun control

Republicans get anti-gay marriage / democrats get anti-drilling

We could go on and on. Your concept that "democrats just want to let people do what they want", in modern day government, is blind. I don't know if its because of misinformation or because you just ignore the facts that do not suit your hypothesis. You would be appalled if I made such a factually incorrect argument in any other "science" (how is political science science anyways?) it surprises me you are so willing to do so in this type of discussion.

BTW, I said CP does it TOO - some of you seem to have missed that part of it.

[cockerpunk]

Yeh, thats not a line in the sand or anything. My thoughts on the matter are you can both be wrong. Neither the democratic party, nor the republican party represent libertarianism well at all. As to which one is closer is meaningless. Its like asking is 100 or -100 closer to 0. They are both that far off from the core ideas. Frankly at this point both seem to support big government, big spending, and a government hand in nearly everything.

If we can call some specific programs we can counter argue it all day long

Republicans get abortion / democrats get gun control

Republicans get anti-gay marriage / democrats get anti-drilling

We could go on and on. Your concept that "democrats just want to let people do what they want", in modern day government, is blind. I don't know if its because of misinformation or because you just ignore the facts that do not suit your hypothesis. You would be appalled if I made such a factually incorrect argument in any other "science" (how is political science science anyways?) it surprises me you are so willing to do so in this type of discussion.

BTW, I said CP does it TOO - some of you seem to have missed that part of it.

is actually a conclusion. deduced and supported and the information in the post. and if no one has a counterpoint - then the conclusion is on sound ground.

i also didn't post anything like "democrats just want to let people do what they want" and that was hardly a conclusion to be taken from my posts. in fact, i said quite the opposite, and this thread is about something the exact opposite - the mandate for health care.

don't put words in my mouth.

[Lohman446]

who is intervening our personal, social and economic matters?

personal - republicans with gay marriage, with abortion, and with the patriot act

social - again, republicans, with gay marriage, abortion, re-writing American history, and theological laws based on the christian religion. also the torture issues and git-mo, changing what the American justice system fundamentally is about.

economic - again, the republicans with the the bank bailouts, with massive deficit spending in worthless wars.
.

Your right, you never said the democrats just wanted to let people leave there life, you just very much left it to be assumed it was what you meant, because it is the evil republicans who are intervening in all walks of life.

CP, you think too highly of your own "deductive" reasoning, or you think to highly of the entirety of the "facts" you use to come to it. Of course, the other side is doing the same thing with different "facts" so I guess it is only fair.

[cockerpunk]

Your right, you never said the democrats just wanted to let people leave there life, you just very much left it to be assumed it was what you meant, because it is the evil republicans who are intervening in all walks of life.

CP, you think too highly of your own "deductive" reasoning, or you think to highly of the entirety of the "facts" you use to come to it. Of course, the other side is doing the same thing with different "facts" so I guess it is only fair.

you post something, and it has nothing supporting it. if you want to make a counter point - make one. i can't take your assurance that i am wrong as a compelling argument that i am wrong. sorry, it doesn't work like that.

i didn't rip into the democrats becuase i was showing how the republicans are NOT libertarians, not even close. and much much farther from that position then the democrats. i even talked about the democrats roles in those three categories in literally the sentence after the ones you quoted.

[Frizzle Fry]

and if no one has a counterpoint - then the conclusion is on sound ground.
How very scientific... If nobody can prove me wrong I'm right? :rolleyes:




CP, you think too highly of your own "deductive" reasoning, or you think to highly of the entirety of the "facts" you use to come to it. Of course, the other side is doing the same thing with different "facts" so I guess it is only fair.

He hasn't stated a fact yet, just opinions and allusions to "government-enforced religion".

[cockerpunk]

How very scientific... If nobody can prove me wrong I'm right? :rolleyes:

yeah, thats how logic works.

[cockerpunk]

How very scientific... If nobody can prove me wrong I'm right? :rolleyes:




He hasn't stated a fact yet, just opinions and allusions to "government-enforced religion".

you need the links? here you go -

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91478/some-conservatives-rewrite-history.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQx_2j5nXuc&channel=aronra

[Frizzle Fry]

you need the links? here you go -

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/01/91478/some-conservatives-rewrite-history.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQx_2j5nXuc&channel=aronra

Show me something that isn't from an leftist newspaper or news organization. Nothing from James McClatchy, Arianna Huffington, or anyone that extreme. That's like quoting Rush Limbaugh or Phil Valentine and hoping for an unbiased opinion. The middle ground isn't so accurate either, but if you take the word of either side for granted... that's just silly.

That said, the links you've posted include examples of a few politicians, and you've used those examples to make VAST generalizations about an entire political party. Does the word "SOME" mean nothing to you? How about "FEW"? If you'd actually read and listened to the links you'd posted you'd realize that they don't support your grand, sweeping statements at all. I'd like to think I walk the middle ground, but I do notice how thickheaded ignorance manifests on both sides.