| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2009 12:13:57 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If Democrats had any history of speaking out against the intimidation tactics they have imployed for decades and were videotaped using this last election with Beret wearing, baton weilding intimidators that the Attorney General has dropped all charges against, then I might give you a little consideration on your concern - but really, who is trying to intimidate who here? |
Okay, that's cool; two wrongs make a right stuff, eh? Your guys did it, so we're allowed to do it? In perpetuity? That's ridiculous. Turn over a new page, facripesake; we can find ample evidence of malfeasance on both sides of the fence for generations past, but so what? In the meanwhile, Americans are suffering because we have literally the most fucked-up health care delivery system in the civilized world...
R. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 12:19:32 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
SDW-These are shouting matches NOT Freedom Of Speech. Regardless of where they are coming from their behavior is uncivilized and their only goal seems to be shutting down discourse. Burning in effigy and newly elected Congressman or painting a Hitler mustache on an Obama poster is a fear tactic and a little over the top, don't you think. |
I agree it could be more civil but when the congressman/woman don't know the answers or continues to say the words they were debriefed to say before the reassess, it's causing people to do this. I have seen this same type of outburst by democrats. And by the way some of the people there are democrats; not all are republican and some have no affiliation with a party.
I have not attended any of the townhall meetings because none have been near where I live. If there was one, I would go. Both to the democratic and republican.
Because I'm not affiliated with any party.
And the article about big government avoiding a depression. There is no way of knowing the stimulus contributed to the up turn. Especially when only about 9% has been spent. I feel as did a lot of Americans that the economy would fix itself. I think that is want's happening. I could be wrong, been before. But if 9% did it then why did we need the other 91%?
Message edited by author 2009-08-10 12:27:59. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 12:24:14 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by SDW:
And even if they were, whats the difference between them (people going against something they don't believe in) and the other protest over the years???
|
The difference is that the Republicans are out-and-out lying, spreading disinformation in a shameful manner. "Death lists"? C'mon, give me a break... This whole process is illustrating just how badly the politics of America have broken down into an us vs them battle of power brokers, with the voice of the citizens having virtually no meaning. The Republicans have had 8 years to do something and they ain't done squat. Now the Dems are trying to do something and the Republicans are fighting them on a shamefully inappropriate level, because they realize that if ANY form of health care reform is passed their party is in deep doo-doo for the foreseeable future. All this happy hoo-hah about how much it's gonna cost us is completely beside the point.
Yes, I'm pissed off...
R. |
And the reason that the dems are trying so hard to pass a bill that most are not willing to read and don't even know whats in the bill is because they are afraid that if they don't pass healthcare reform their party is in deep doo-doo for the foreseeable future. So I guess you could say from the governments angle is all political motivated.
But from the citizens POV it's about the quality, quantity, and access to care.
Message edited by author 2009-08-10 12:29:19. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 12:28:22 PM · #479 |
Wow. The broad generalizations that people are passing off for fact in here is awesome.
Thank god nobodys buying into party rhetoric at all either!
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:14:29 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Democrats had any history of speaking out against the intimidation tactics they have imployed for decades and were videotaped using this last election with Beret wearing, baton weilding intimidators that the Attorney General has dropped all charges against, then I might give you a little consideration on your concern - but really, who is trying to intimidate who here? |
Okay, that's cool; two wrongs make a right stuff, eh? Your guys did it, so we're allowed to do it? In perpetuity? That's ridiculous. Turn over a new page, facripesake; we can find ample evidence of malfeasance on both sides of the fence for generations past, but so what? In the meanwhile, Americans are suffering because we have literally the most fucked-up health care delivery system in the civilized world...
R. |
Bear...
There are a couple of comments I have regarding this post.
1. As the Dems are in the majority and are the current powere holders, perhaps they could lead by example and turn over a new page. All I've seen thus far is the same Clintonian actions/statements by the same machine. Turning over a new leaf would be good, but it takes 2 sides. Certainly you wouldn't want just the republicans to lie down, cower in defeat, and let the dems walk over us - would you?
2. I do not agree that the US has the most ______ health care delivery system in the civilised world. For many - it works fine. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:20:54 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by SDW:
I feel as did a lot of Americans that the economy would fix itself. I think that is want's happening. |
!!!
We were in a bloody free fall. Seriously, on the edge of the abyss...and without trying to sound too dramatic, that's probably an understatement.
Major financial corporations were on the verge of Bankruptcy (Citi, Fanny, Freddy, AIG) along with hundreds of companies in supportive service of those businesses. It's hard to fathom the number of job loses without that TARP money. If there was ever anything in our current history to fear...that was it and again, that's no exaggeration.
Citi has 322,800 employees, Bank Of America 203,425 and AIG's down to 116,000 and that's just the tippy tip of the iceberg. Letting them collapse would have brought on irreparable ruin. Those are only a few employee numbers after they slashed and burned just to stay alive. My hair falls out just thinking of them going under...and again, I mention all the businesses they would have taken down with them. Since we produce almost nothing outside of these services, how could we ever rebuild? we've shifted to a service economy without that we're nothing.
Regarding Capitalism, free unfettered markets and failed Republican philosophy is why I posted "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" from Ralph Waldo Emersons Self Reliance (additional link) and in particular to "little statesmen" like Boehner. They simply have it wrong but they're stickin to it at any cost.
We need to be more progressive and not stick to the same rap if we wish to survive and become competitive ever again because we are losing day by day.
Message edited by author 2009-08-10 16:48:37. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:28:49 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not agree that the US has the most ______ health care delivery system in the civilised world. For many - it works fine. |
The measure is not how it works for some: the measure is how it works for ALL.
R. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:33:57 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
I do not agree that the US has the most ______ health care delivery system in the civilised world. For many - it works fine. |
The measure is not how it works for some: the measure is how it works for ALL.
R. |
And as I posted previously, if healthcare is a right, then is it not a rights for ALL humankind. If it is a right for all humankind, then where are the proposals to make it so? If it is not a right for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE, then how is the line drawn between those who are served and those who are not? If some can be excluded, then many can. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:53:14 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The measure is not how it works for some: the measure is how it works for ALL. |
And as I posted previously, if healthcare is a right, then is it not a rights for ALL humankind. If it is a right for all humankind, then where are the proposals to make it so? If it is not a right for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE, then how is the line drawn between those who are served and those who are not? If some can be excluded, then many can. |
That's the most ridiculous argument that this ridiculous thread has spawned. Are you seriously proposing that, because *we* cannot afford to provide care to the world, we should not attempt to provide for our own citizens a health care delivery system that works for all? When every other industrialized nation, basically, is already doing so? Come ON! What is wrong with this picture?
R. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 02:07:48 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
When every other industrialized nation, basically, is already doing so? Come ON! What is wrong with this picture?
R. |
But at what costs? How does their tax structure add up to ours? Do we want to pay 50% or better in income taxes to make sure everyone has an insurance option. I don't. The plan that is being rammed at us is not a viable option, especially when looking at long-term costs. Until O can come up with a self-sustaining plan, I don't want to hear anything about his desire to spend more.
Message edited by author 2009-08-10 14:36:27.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 02:11:13 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The measure is not how it works for some: the measure is how it works for ALL. |
And as I posted previously, if healthcare is a right, then is it not a rights for ALL humankind. If it is a right for all humankind, then where are the proposals to make it so? If it is not a right for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE, then how is the line drawn between those who are served and those who are not? If some can be excluded, then many can. |
That's the most ridiculous argument that this ridiculous thread has spawned. Are you seriously proposing that, because *we* cannot afford to provide care to the world, we should not attempt to provide for our own citizens a health care delivery system that works for all? When every other industrialized nation, basically, is already doing so? Come ON! What is wrong with this picture?
R. |
No that is not my proposal. My point is that either it is a right or it is a priviledge. Many here present their position as it being a "right". If it is a right, then how can you deny that right to others living elsewhere? If you can, then it must not be a right? So don't continue to present it as such.
As a priveledge, the argument becomes - the fairness of coverage and the access of coverage. Owning a car is a priviledge. You can choose to own any numbers of cars. Some are more expensive, some less so. With the more expensive ones comes more features. But they cost more. If you want to pay for those features you can have them. If you don't pay for them, you don't get them.
Healthcare is either a right or a priviledge. If it is a right, then it belongs to every man and woman. Not just every man and woman in the US. Perhaps we need a world tax to provide for world healthcare. All governments participating, with the same standard for all world citizens - equally.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:16:36 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My point is that either it is a right or it is a priviledge. Many here present their position as it being a "right". If it is a right, then how can you deny that right to others living elsewhere? If you can, then it must not be a right? So don't continue to present it as such. |
You're ignoring that inconvenient political reality called "state sovereignty." We have no more right to decide for other nations and governments how they provide health care (or not) to their citizens than they have a right to decide for us. So it's a nice philosophical dream, but it doesn't get you very far in the real world. We, U.S. citizens, can only decide this question for ourselves at this point, and I hope we can get beyond the culture of "every man for himself" long enough to conclude that a basic level of health care should be extended to every U.S. citizen. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:18:08 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Flash:
My point is that either it is a right or it is a priviledge. Many here present their position as it being a "right". If it is a right, then how can you deny that right to others living elsewhere? If you can, then it must not be a right? So don't continue to present it as such. |
You're ignoring that inconvenient political reality called "state sovereignty." We have no more right to decide for other nations and governments how they provide health care (or not) to their citizens than they have a right to decide for us. So it's a nice philosophical dream, but it doesn't get you very far in the real world. We, U.S. citizens, can only decide this question for ourselves at this point, and I hope we can get beyond the culture of "every man for himself" long enough to conclude that a basic level of health care should be extended to every U.S. citizen. |
Amen!
R. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:20:47 PM · #489 |
| TEXAS, as well as many other states, if not all also have "state sovereignty." |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:34:46 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by SDW:
And the article about big government avoiding a depression. There is no way of knowing the stimulus contributed to the up turn. Especially when only about 9% has been spent. I feel as did a lot of Americans that the economy would fix itself. I think that is want's happening. I could be wrong, been before. But if 9% did it then why did we need the other 91%? |
It's not just the stimulus but the bank bailouts as well that have stabilized the economy to some degree. And I'd just point out that virtually every reputable economist, even the most ideological right-of-center economists, agreed last fall that the government stepping in and propping up the banks was necessary, and there also was virtually unanimous agreement that some degree of economic stimulus was necessary. It was only the politicians and the pundits (and only those who believe in laissez-faire) who argued against any of this stuff. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:39:25 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by SDW:
And the article about big government avoiding a depression. There is no way of knowing the stimulus contributed to the up turn. Especially when only about 9% has been spent. I feel as did a lot of Americans that the economy would fix itself. I think that is want's happening. I could be wrong, been before. But if 9% did it then why did we need the other 91%? |
It's not just the stimulus but the bank bailouts as well that have stabilized the economy to some degree. And I'd just point out that virtually every reputable economist, even the most ideological right-of-center economists, agreed last fall that the government stepping in and propping up the banks was necessary, and there also was virtually unanimous agreement that some degree of economic stimulus was necessary. It was only the politicians and the pundits (and only those who believe in laissez-faire) who argued against any of this stuff. |
You know that the majority of bailout money from last Sep went to pay foreign banks? I didn't buy it then when Bush did it, nor when Obama did it. All the "emergency, we gotta do something insane or the sky will fall" is a load of crap, IMO. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 08:13:11 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
All the "emergency, we gotta do something insane or the sky will fall" is a load of crap, IMO. |
That's all the Obama administration has to stand on. Any other way and they wouldn't get crap through Congress. And the liberals like to give all the credit for scare tactics to the Republicans. Ha! |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 08:57:55 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The only free care provided is ER and childbirth (essentially helping U.S. citizens at birth). |
Healthcare is healthcare. If they get it free someone
has to pay for it.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Primary care is not free, and illegal parents are routinely deported when caught. |
If one in 10,000 is considered routinely caught.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The children confer little advantage to parents seeking citizenship later. |
Applicants with relatives, who are citizens, have a much greater rate of success in gaining citizenship.
Originally posted by scalvert:
This is an utter waste of keystrokes. |
I doubt that it will keep you from attempting to refute anything you don't like seeing in this forum. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 09:42:25 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by SDW:
And the article about big government avoiding a depression. There is no way of knowing the stimulus contributed to the up turn. Especially when only about 9% has been spent. I feel as did a lot of Americans that the economy would fix itself. I think that is want's happening. I could be wrong, been before. But if 9% did it then why did we need the other 91%? |
It's not just the stimulus but the bank bailouts as well that have stabilized the economy to some degree. And I'd just point out that virtually every reputable economist, even the most ideological right-of-center economists, agreed last fall that the government stepping in and propping up the banks was necessary, and there also was virtually unanimous agreement that some degree of economic stimulus was necessary. It was only the politicians and the pundits (and only those who believe in laissez-faire) who argued against any of this stuff. |
You know that the majority of bailout money from last Sep went to pay foreign banks? I didn't buy it then when Bush did it, nor when Obama did it. All the "emergency, we gotta do something insane or the sky will fall" is a load of crap, IMO. |
Do you have any data to back up that claim?
Even if what you say is true, it is very likely that every last dime of the bank bailout money will be repaid, as a lot of it has been and is being repaid at this moment. So why folks get so worked up about this is beyond me. |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 09:45:16 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
TEXAS, as well as many other states, if not all also have "state sovereignty." |
So what? It's not absolute sovereignty or Texas and every other state would be nation-states.
Are you saying these health care reform proposals are unconstitutional? |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 10:23:28 PM · #496 |
|
|
|
08/10/2009 11:10:03 PM · #497 |
Please don't take me wrong but I think you need some therapy. You seem to have jealousy and anger issues. This was free this time but next time it will cost you $150 in you have insurance and $300 if you don't.
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your attitude really reflects a lack of understanding of the concepts of society and civilization -- a fundamental desire for a return to the true anarchy of the law of the jungle. Did it not occur to you that your money wouldn't be worth the paper its printed on if it weren't backed by the consensual agreement of your fellow taxpayers to support the governmental structure? |
You are absolutely wrong. My attitude reflects a couple of decades of watching social parasites suck on the government tit expecting to give nothing in return. I spent many, many years riding an urban ambulance, responding to those "underprivileged" citizens, their 9 fucking children, living in 100% government funded housing, living on 100% government funded welfare/food stamp programs, working absolutely 0%, paying absolutely 0% income taxes, driving their Cadillac Escalades, playing their new gaming system on their 60" plasma screens and expecting that I somehow still owe them something more. Now I need to give a shit if they and their baseball team of children have access to a doctor or not.
There is not a hospital or health system in this country that will deny you care that you need to sustain life or limb without regard to whether you can pay or not. Beyond that, if you need healthcare, you should be able to find a way to cover yourself. Why do you expect me to pay more so you can go see a doctor with every little headache or chest cold? I'd like granite counter tops throughout my house. You willing to pitch in? I know...I do't need them, but I really, really want them. I grew up with NOTHING, but I had parents that worked their asses off with two, sometimes three, minimum wage jobs each to make sure there was food on the table and that we were self-sufficient. Neither of them got past the 8th grade, and I had no direction towards doing anything different. But I did. I have a job that provides a pretty good health plan. I do pay fairly high premiums, but I get what I pay for and I pay for what I use. Now you expect me to add your care into my taxes or health premiums, too? That's where I call bullshit. I found a way to fund my life and all of my needs without any expectations that anyone else would be there to help me. The rest of society should, too. OR, these social parasites that the system has produced should be willing to contribute something back to the system. How about we cover your healthcare needs and you agree to cover the days of some of these furloughed government workers to make sure that all the services that we are already paing for can continue seamlessly? Maybe take a weekend that you are off from work to cut some grass on the highway or perhaps help out at the local landfill? If you are willing to give more, I'll make an agreement to pay more. Until then, start learning to take care of yourself and your family. Your needs are not my problem. |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 11:28:31 PM · #498 |
Secession. That's probably the best idea. I just noticed that New York State paid $244,672,914,000 in 2007, of the revenue collected by the Fed (#2 on the list).
Way too much, I'd say for carrying the burden of folks we don't agree with or have all that much in common with, for that matter.
Now, the State of Georgia only pays $75 Billion, less than a third of what we pay. Question: Should we cut off some of their services?
I'm a bit tired at the moment but this thread makes me want to get as far away as I can from this sinking pile of dung we call the United States, as fast as I can.
Desperately Seeking An Exit Strategy...anyone...? Anyone...? Beuller...? Beuller...? Anyone?
Seriously. Europe? Hong Kong? Singapore? I need ideas...
Message edited by author 2009-08-11 00:43:43. |
|
|
|
08/11/2009 01:00:04 AM · #499 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Seriously. Europe? Hong Kong? Singapore? I need ideas... |
Well there are those world islands being built in Dubai. Maybe there's still time to get one of those U.S. islands.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2009 04:28:46 AM · #500 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Desperately Seeking An Exit Strategy...anyone...? Anyone...? Beuller...? Beuller...? Anyone?
Seriously. Europe? Hong Kong? Singapore? I need ideas... |
If you can talk Obama into going with you, I'll cover the moving expenses. |
|
