Malokyte Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 ok health insurance is f***ing expensive i will admit that. but i have a couple questions is medicare doing good or failing? is medicaid doing good or failing? we are sopposed to get nationalized health insurance like this. if its failing now why the hell would we spread it throughout the country? and a good example of socialistic policies failing is very obvious. social security is an example of another epic fail from the goverment and if they cant handle this which is much less hard than medicare from most americans what makes you think its gonna work? and someone brought up a good point about possesions. many of these people that whine and complain about healthcare have a nice car like a bmw or something and they also have their 60 inch tvs. honestly it all comes down to do you think the goverment can spend YOUR money better than you can. and if the answer is yes you sir are a dumass. Care fund the entire military? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to go around putting out every fire and uphold the law, alone? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to deliver everyone's mail? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to pave every road in America? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Wake up and smell the freaking coffee, socialism is all around you but you're too naive to realize that it actually is socialism. Look at your health care system. You have the highest GDP out of every nation, yet you rank 37th in healthcare quality. DURP DURP MUCH? Really, largest profit in the world, yet you fail to beat San Marino, Andorra, Oman, Monaco, Colombia, Cyprus, Chile and Dominica in HEALTH CARE!? You probably haven't even HEARD of these countries except in passing. YET THEY OUTRANK YOU IN HEALTHCARE. Your system is FAILING you, and you bother to fight ANY sort of change. Here's a nice saying to reflect your stupidity: Why pick the evil you know, over the possible good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connection Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 (edited) Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get. right now there is an economic barrier that decides what treatments and benefits i get, or if i get any at all.there is a committee of executives that recommends what is covered under what plans. right now their primary motivation is profit, because they represent a corporation. if i don't like the way they make policy, i can't vote for someone who will change things. i am up #### creek if i think they shouldn't make all their decisions based on what will statistically make them most money - i.e. my treatment is built by the lowest bidder, and my pharma is prescribed by whatever drug has the biggest advertising budget. how much worse would it be if there is an advisory committee? Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!! this section sets limits for copays? who wants unlimited copays? i swear sometimes i dont think posts like this really expect people to actually read it for themselves. or to understand it if they do. Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice! um, didn't we just say a joint public/private advisory panel decides minimum plan coverage? the commissioner is the head of an executive branch agency, whose function is to enforce the standards. if an insurance company is not meeting federal minimum coverage, the commissioner sees to it that they are brought in line. Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise. ok look. SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequentregulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (includinginsurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall beprovided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision ofhigh quality health care or related services. this says that you can't discriminate against patients because they look funny, unless you look funny because of some medical condition that a physician needs to be aware of. how does that mean healthcare for illegal immigrants? Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!) what is a social security card again? remember that letter you get once a year detailing all the money you ever made? ever file taxes? the gov't already knows what your finances are. this is new? Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry) the page numbers in this don't match the page numbers in the bill. could you give a section number for that? word searches return 0 hits. is "elective funds transfer" what it sounds like it is? because heck, if it's elective, just don't elect it. Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN). SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporaryreinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’)to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-basedplans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligiblespouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees. this is on page 24 btw, i don't know where you are getting page numbers from. this is a temporary program to reimburse employers who are paying out insurance benefits to retirees. it has absolutely nothing to do with acorn. you know acorn was found NOT GUILTY OF AN Y CRIME, right? that the guy in the pimp suit who snuck a camera in heavily edited the videos? that he actually didn't dress up like that in the offices, and that he chopped up all the video? look it up. i doubt fox news covered that much. Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.' this section spells out that any insurance provider that wants to be a part of an exchange has to offer plans that meet the guidelines for minimum coverage as recommended by the public/private advisory panel. i don't see making sure health care meets a minimum standard as a bad thing, but i guess i see your point about your right to buy ineffective health care being taken away ( except this section doesn't do that.. it just sets guidelines for insurance companies who want to opt into an exchange. they don't have to, so they can always offer ebay-healthcare on the side if they think it's a better business model. ) like, if you really want to work for less than minimum wage, you should be allowed to, you know? Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care! that's minimums, not maximums. rationing would be spelling out the MAX you can get, not requiring health insurance providers to meet minimum standards for benefits and coverage. Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.) (f) EFFECTIVE CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION.—In carrying out this section, the Commissioner shall establish effective methods forcommunicating in plain language and a culturally and linguistically appropriatemanner "communicating in plain language" = illegal aliens? Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan. the page numbers are off once again and i can't find anything relating to this. but it makes sense, i mean, how did you expect the gov't to help people in the getto understand and take advantage of free or assisted health insurance? by sending out a letter to everyone? relying on fox news to tell ppl? you go sign up at the DMV? why keep saying acorn like it is a bad thing? acorn is about bankrupt thanks to the media, that covered the hoax before it was exposed, then barely mentioned that it turned out to be a hoax. all of their investors have pulled out because of what they heard on TV. acorn was cleared of any wrongdoing... but yeah, the 'news' tanked them. def. won't be acorn doing any of this. do you think the unemployment office is a terrible oppressive communist institution too? Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!) this is minimum benefits again.. not maximum coverage. ( any AARP members in this clan? even thor is not that old lol ) Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.) it's not "no choice" it's that you get to skip applying through state agencies. you can now get in medicaid under looser federal requirements for eligibility, quicker, if you choose to. read: "the option to elect to enroll" (e) MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) CHOICE FOR LIMITED EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—As part of theenrollment process under subsection (, the Commissioner shall providethe option, in the case of an Exchange-eligible individual described in section202(d)(3), for the individual to elect to enroll under Medicaid insteadof under an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. Such an individualmay change such election during an enrollment period under subsection((2).( MEDICAID ENROLLMENT OBLIGATION.—An Exchange eligible individualmay apply, in the manner described in section 241((1), for a determinationof whether the individual is a Medicaid-eligible individual. If the individualis determined to be so eligible, the Commissioner, through the Medicaidmemorandum of understanding, shall provide for the enrollment ofthe individual under the State Medicaid plan in accordance with the Medicaidmemorandum of understanding under paragraph (4). In the case ofsuch an enrollment, the State shall provide for the same periodic redeterminationof eligibility under Medicaid as would otherwise apply if the individualhad directly applied for medical assistance to the State Medicaidagency.(2) NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of a nontraditionalMedicaid eligible individual described in section 202(d)(3) who electsto enroll under Medicaid under paragraph (1)(A), the Commissioner shall providefor the enrollment of the individual under the State Medicaid plan in accordancewith the Medicaid memorandum of understanding under paragraph Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly. page number is wrong. please tell me section number or quote text? well, ya know, no bank can sue the government for establishing a prime lending rate either. UPS can't sue for fixing the price of stamps. but that's not "judicial review" anyway - judicial review is the supreme court's ability to declare a law unconstitutional. do you think small businesses should be able to sue walmart for their low prices? heh i kinda like that idea. too bad they can't. Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make. page number is wrong. where is this? section number? Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!) section number? pretty sure this means if an employee is eligible for a public plan, the employer is not required to offer a health care plan to that employee. this isn't a bad thing. Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.) .. if that employee was covered as a full time employee and then goes to part-time because of a necessary medical leave of absence. employers will have to offer some kind of health care for part time employees too ( this is tens of millions of people who otherwise had no access to affordable health care ), but employer contribution will be reduced in line with whatever % of full time a person is, i.e if you work 20 hrs a week, the employer pays in half as much. if you work 10 hrs a wee, only 1/4 as much, etc. i didn't have any insurance all through college, because i couldn't work full -time. i wish this law had been in effect then! i would have at least had an option. Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.) Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll. Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income. section 412, if anyone cares. none of the page numbers in this list are accurate. ‘‘If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is:Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................................................................... 0 percentExceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 ............................................... 2 percentExceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 ............................................... 4 percentExceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 ............................................... 6 percent congrats. the first point in this list that was accurate. .. except it's not a "public option" that all employers have to provide - it's health insurance, some kind of health insurance, that meets minimum standards for quality of care. if you can't afford the 2.5% income tax penalty, you qualify for free government subsidized health insurance. Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay. Like always) exchange students won't have an income tax penalty. wow. thats disturbing. none of the illegal aliens i know pay taxes at all, and they don't fill out tax returns either. Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees) see above, where the HC administration is tied to the IRS, who also have complete access to your salary amount. guess where the HC administration is going to get it's information.. they need to know, in order to determine who is eligible for subsidized insurance. Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that! A 'fee' instead) another line to computing earned income credit. a lot of people, the sort of people who get a return every yeah instead of owing the IRS, would just get a smaller return, or might not be affected at all, if they already easily met their EIC. whew! for a sec there i thought the gov't would throw me in a japanese internment camp if i didn't have health insurance! Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.) this part of the law is pretty thick, talking about the formulae to determine fees and reimbursements for medicaid for physicians and ppl on medicaid and everything else. from what i can tell, the law reduces the contribution of physician services to the parameter used for all the $$ calculation, where 'physician services' means the sheer number of things the doctor does to you. as it was, the formula for how much medicaidpaid doctors was biased by the number of things they did. the new law doesn't rely so heavily on whether your dr proscribed 23 drugs or 3, and increases the importance of whether the 23 pills or the 3 worked better. please give section number or quote, because this is page 239:Sec. 205. Outreach and Enrollment of Exchange-eligible Individualsand Employers in Exchange-participating Health Benefits PlanOutreach. The Commissioner would conduct outreach activities toinform and educate individuals and employers about the Exchangeand its participating health plans. Such outreach would includeoutreach specific to vulnerable populations, such as children, individualswith disabilities, individuals with mental illness, and individualswith other cognitive impairments. Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries. this only affects medicare payouts, and..this applies the same rules to ambulance services and laboratories ( out patient services ) that already apply to other medicare outpatient and all inpatient services. so now if a private ambulance service takes an hour to drive a medicare patient to a hospital, when it should have only taken 20 minutes, they get reimbursed less $$ i don't see that as bad. what's bad is that this only applies to medicare, and i'm not eligible for medicare until i'm 65. before this law, if a lab screwed up all their samples, you still had to pay them %100 for the job. Edited April 1, 2010 by Connection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=FA=ArmTheINSANE Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 good job connection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCrows Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 Care fund the entire military? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to go around putting out every fire and uphold the law, alone? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to deliver everyone's mail? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Care to pave every road in America? I THINK NOT. SOCIALISM Wake up and smell the freaking coffee, socialism is all around you but you're too naive to realize that it actually is socialism. Look at your health care system. You have the highest GDP out of every nation, yet you rank 37th in healthcare quality. DURP DURP MUCH? Really, largest profit in the world, yet you fail to beat San Marino, Andorra, Oman, Monaco, Colombia, Cyprus, Chile and Dominica in HEALTH CARE!? You probably haven't even HEARD of these countries except in passing. YET THEY OUTRANK YOU IN HEALTHCARE. Your system is FAILING you, and you bother to fight ANY sort of change. Here's a nice saying to reflect your stupidity: Why pick the evil you know, over the possible good? You know those examples are not socialist There are many variants; Marxism, state-directed, Utopian, Revolutionary, etc but they all have one common goal, to move to a communist system of Government. It's in the manifestos of them all in one way or another. Marx simplified that sentiment by saying something to the effect that socialism is just a lesser degree of communism and serves as a mechanism to reach the highest stage of communism. WIth respect to any members living in a communist country, I can't think of any communist government that is not just as deeply flawed, and in many respects, more flawed, than our Republic. Many love to say how horrible America is, or how bad we are at XYZ. That's easy for any country : How many of you have been -IN- a bread line in Soviet Russia? If you had seen the thousands of people who looked like Americans did in the great depression, perhaps that might change your view of the socialist/communist utopia. That stage lasted from the 1920s' to the 1990s. A 70 year great depression? WOW. Yes, lets do that here! No thanks, I saw some of those people in the 80's. America is not a democracy, the founding fathers saw fit to have those great debates and leave us a Republic. Everyone uses the term democracy, but that does not accurately reflect what we have or are. We are a republic based on the idea that the government, by its nature, does not have the right or the knowledge or ability to run our lives in the super-intrusive way many others do. Each successive generation however has become more complacent, lazy and hand-fed such that they are willing to give up essential liberty for perceived freedom, and yes it is only perceived; Yes, even though I served in the military, I count myself in the generations that have allowed the loss of liberty because you can -NEVER- do enough to retain it. Our system is not failing, the PEOPLE running the system are failiing because just like everywhere else, they have their own agenda and would rather get re-elected on how much pork they roll up for their special interests than their constituents. How about we change that saying a little : Once you allow the big, wonderful, all-knowing and benevolent government to come in and sit down on your couch, hand over the remote and give over the keys, you will find you are not so happy any longer because he will give you the pleasure of working for free, eating when he tells you, sleeping when he tells you, walking how he tells you, owning what he allows you to, taking from you at will. Or maybe we can use the line from that Rush song... "Let those who know what is best for us, rise up and save us from ourselves". Sorry, no thank you Great topic though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malokyte Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 You know those examples are not socialist In a way, they are. Any company can decide to setup a fire brigade, or cop force, mail service (which they have), and road maintenance. But almost nobody does it. Why? For one, government regulations make it difficult for them to be established, limiting it essentially to government-run venues. Second, the odds that anybody will think to call a private company to get them to put out a fire is incredibly low. Why would you want to pay a fee for somebody to put out a fire? So naturally, the government fills that role with a non-discriminatory fire fighting system, essentially dominating the industry. Same with private security, you can have bodyguards, but law dictates that you can only truly arrest somebody with a government employed cop, limiting true law enforcement to the government. You can hire a private company for specialized shipping, but when you want to send mail, or sometimes other packages, you resort to the Postal service. The government doesnt stop other companies from doing business, but the Postal service will always have the advantage of government funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCrows Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 In a way, they are. Any company can decide to setup a fire brigade, or cop force, mail service (which they have), and road maintenance. But almost nobody does it. Why? For one, government regulations make it difficult for them to be established, limiting it essentially to government-run venues. Second, the odds that anybody will think to call a private company to get them to put out a fire is incredibly low. Why would you want to pay a fee for somebody to put out a fire? So naturally, the government fills that role with a non-discriminatory fire fighting system, essentially dominating the industry. Same with private security, you can have bodyguards, but law dictates that you can only truly arrest somebody with a government employed cop, limiting true law enforcement to the government. You can hire a private company for specialized shipping, but when you want to send mail, or sometimes other packages, you resort to the Postal service. The government doesnt stop other companies from doing business, but the Postal service will always have the advantage of government funding. Ahh, but is setting up a fire-department socialist? not really, it's one of the services for which your taxes go to, well, are supposed to go to hehe.They may be social programs, but that does not mean it's a socialist agenda or ideal. The socialist ideal has more to do with ownership, possessions, freedoms, work-allocation, etc. I would say that in many respects the Gov't is at a clear disadvantage with respect to many of those functions (police, mail, etc), precisely because they are bound by law (which is a good thing). It's not because private companies lack the funding; remember, -ALL- Government is a parasite on the citizens, it only has any resources because it is allowed to drink from the wealth of its' citizens , sometimes through taxes, sometimes outright theft (royal tribute, etc) and sometimes by force of will (communist police state). Simply by allowing an agency to wield power does not make it socialist, it makes it a delegated authority (such as the power of arrest). The authority was delegated to the Government and it created an agency to wield that power. If you had a choice of calling a private police force, that had lets say all the same powers as a legislated body (Police), but that private company responded within 2 minutes instead of 15; Which would you choose? Of course you'd call the private company. This is of course through the idealist view that they are both totally benevolent, well-run, well-regulated, with proper oversight. In reality neither are, they are both flawed. Why don't they do it on a large scale? The need isnt great enough, but It does already exist to a degree, some security companies do have arrest powers. I'm a vigorous opponent of the socialist ideal because it is impossible for man to govern himself this way. It directly concentrates power into a handful of people who are behind a complete sham of a structure. I'm always amused to hear the terms "the people's library, the peoples' courthouse", etc used in communist countries. They are no more of/for the people than anything else, this is easy to see by how easily people are imprisoned for simply speaking out against their government. Many have posted pieces of the health-care legislation; And while the words as written may appear to be one way, remember, this was written by and will be interpreted by: Lawyers. The language of law does not always mean exactly what the words themselves as written spell out; Hence the argument of "letter Vs. Intent/Spirit.". I'm always of the observe first mind-set before I come up with a complete position, but even at this early stage, there are a lot of troubling signs. I wonder how many people looked on in disbelief as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government. I wonder how many really understand why a national ID card (yes, including the "social security" card) is a bad thing? Government is not here to be your friend, to serve cake and cookies in the morning, or even to do what is in your best interest. It is a necessary evil that must be vigorously audited, regulated and policed by its people. I completely, whole-heartedly support my country (USA). But I completely, whole-heartedly believe that if not vigilant, "the people" will abdiacte their power to an entity that history has proven to us quickly turns from the kindly old uncle, into the raging lunatic cousin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malokyte Posted April 3, 2010 Share Posted April 3, 2010 Ahh, but is setting up a fire-department socialist? not really, it's one of the services for which your taxes go to, well, are supposed to go to hehe.They may be social programs, but that does not mean it's a socialist agenda or ideal. The socialist ideal has more to do with ownership, possessions, freedoms, work-allocation, etc. I would say that in many respects the Gov't is at a clear disadvantage with respect to many of those functions (police, mail, etc), precisely because they are bound by law (which is a good thing). It's not because private companies lack the funding; remember, -ALL- Government is a parasite on the citizens, it only has any resources because it is allowed to drink from the wealth of its' citizens , sometimes through taxes, sometimes outright theft (royal tribute, etc) and sometimes by force of will (communist police state). Simply by allowing an agency to wield power does not make it socialist, it makes it a delegated authority (such as the power of arrest). The authority was delegated to the Government and it created an agency to wield that power. If you had a choice of calling a private police force, that had lets say all the same powers as a legislated body (Police), but that private company responded within 2 minutes instead of 15; Which would you choose? Of course you'd call the private company. This is of course through the idealist view that they are both totally benevolent, well-run, well-regulated, with proper oversight. In reality neither are, they are both flawed. Why don't they do it on a large scale? The need isnt great enough, but It does already exist to a degree, some security companies do have arrest powers. I'm a vigorous opponent of the socialist ideal because it is impossible for man to govern himself this way. It directly concentrates power into a handful of people who are behind a complete sham of a structure. I'm always amused to hear the terms "the people's library, the peoples' courthouse", etc used in communist countries. They are no more of/for the people than anything else, this is easy to see by how easily people are imprisoned for simply speaking out against their government. Many have posted pieces of the health-care legislation; And while the words as written may appear to be one way, remember, this was written by and will be interpreted by: Lawyers. The language of law does not always mean exactly what the words themselves as written spell out; Hence the argument of "letter Vs. Intent/Spirit.". I'm always of the observe first mind-set before I come up with a complete position, but even at this early stage, there are a lot of troubling signs. I wonder how many people looked on in disbelief as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government. I wonder how many really understand why a national ID card (yes, including the "social security" card) is a bad thing? Government is not here to be your friend, to serve cake and cookies in the morning, or even to do what is in your best interest. It is a necessary evil that must be vigorously audited, regulated and policed by its people. I completely, whole-heartedly support my country (USA). But I completely, whole-heartedly believe that if not vigilant, "the people" will abdiacte their power to an entity that history has proven to us quickly turns from the kindly old uncle, into the raging lunatic cousin. What you stated as the socialist ideal is closer to communism than socialism. Socialism supports industries being under government control, but it doesn't need everything else controlled to be considered socialist. Communism is total micro-management by the government to distribute the wealth and work evenly amongst the people, in theory. And following the law shouldn't be seen as a disadvantage, it should be seen as a virtue. Admittadely, some idiots here and there manage to soil such a quality due to their own human nature, but that is expected. And of course, you'd pick the option that best suits your needs in a time of crisis. However, considering how a private company is limited by the profit motive while the government isn't, if in a crisis a private company has to decide if they can be expected to get a return from it. The government does not have such qualms, and thus can serve a larger base of people over a private company. This is the advantage of a socialized service. The service is not bound by profit, and thus has no restrictions on helping anyone in their time of need. And taxes are a necessary function for government to exist. You cannot expect protection for you country without either pledged your life and countless others to its defense, or paying taxes for said protection. Same with basic infrastructure. Unless you want toll booths set up at every turn, you resort to a non-profit agency to maintain basic transportation needs. And giving an agency power can very well be socialist in nature. If I gave power to only a select few doctors to practice legally, I am now controlling the medical industry. I can decide who works and who doesn't, where and when they work, and under what circumstances. It's frightenening power, yes, but the flaw in the corrupted power argument that I know I'd hear if I didn't clarify this, is that there is a system of restrictions and control on government which would make it impossible for an abuse of power to occur without serious reprocutions for the transgressor and a swift repair of the situation. There's also the fact that the most powerful offices in the country are held by a democratic process, one that has held through a few centuries. For the United States to be taken over by a dictator, you would need to have A) supported him throughout his election and legislative proposals to set up a dictatorship, which is highly unlikely. get taken over by another country, again highly unlikely. Or C) a military coup by a high ranking officer in the military. More likely that the other two, but even then highly unlikely, due to military positions being controlled by the government, and every leader is smart enough to realize who will stab them in the back at a later date. Therefore, the only way you're going to get a dictator-like government is if you yourself bring it into office, and not any other way. Human nature will always create flaws in every plan. A socialized health care will not be perfect off the bat, it will not be perfect after reforms, it will not be perfect when the theory behind it is perfect. But the same can be said with any capitalist venture. And capitalism allows more human nature into the decission making, allowing more room for flaws. Socialism relies on regulation for both what they control and the controller. And again, what you described as socialism, where power is controlled by a few, is not accurate. Socialism is a political ideal, not a political system. What you described is an oligarchy that follows a "socialist" ideal. Socialism is actually compatible alongside democracy, and it is practiced side by side in multiple European countries and Canada. To get this clear, socialism is the government supporting the regulation of industry by the state. What you have described were dictatorships or oligarchies using communism and socialism as a weak veil to what they really are. Alongside that, they've used democracy and republics as veils, but I don't see Americans interpreting democracy as a sham now. And you'll have to explain why a national I.D. card is a bad thing. And you make the same logical error when you assume socialism halts all regulation. Nothing stops the people from countering a socialist movement in a democratic country. You do not live in a dictatorship, and adopting a socialist ideal will not make it one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=FA=ArmTheINSANE Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 wow, Malokyte, you are only 16? I didn't know what oligarchies were until I was in grad school. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCrows Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 And you make the same logical error when you assume socialism halts all regulation. Nothing stops the people from countering a socialist movement in a democratic country. You do not live in a dictatorship, and adopting a socialist ideal will not make it one. Really? Tell that to the people who rose up against Pol Pot. Or the people who rose up against Hitler. Or the people who rose up against Lenin or Stalin. You could of course go "Nuh uh! hitler was a nazi! Pol Pot was communist! stalin? communist!", Lenin was definitely socialst, based on Marx and unfortunately, socialism is only a few slim shades away from either facism or communism. They all embrace much greater governmental intrusion and in one form or another the consolidation of power in a small unified body.. Call it a polit-beureau, a council, a reich...all the same thing. If socialism were just a political ideal without muscle, teeth, and a system of government it would be a theory and not a reality. In fact, most times it can be described as a socialist system. Social democrats for example want to much around with capitalism by tampering with private companies to acheive their view of the socialist system. Socialism could be broken down into two ways to reach that wonderful utopian state of universal suffering...Either from the elite or from the masses, usually the "laborers". And again, what you described as socialism, where power is controlled by a few, is not accurate. Socialism is a political ideal, not a political system. What you described is an oligarchy that follows a "socialist" ideal. Socialism is actually compatible alongside democracy, and it is practiced side by side in multiple European countries and Canada. To get this clear, socialism is the government supporting the regulation of industry by the state What you have in those European countries are hybrids of several types of government, without a single true socialist government, even Russia today is more of a Capitalist-communism. Lets use an easy to google definition of socialism : "A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation" That last piece of the last sentence should stand out, translation : Forced re-allocation of wealth and resources. Why would I say that? "A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy" Complete nationalisation of the means of production. Thats not an ideal, thats a direct form of intervention that is only possible if you have the means to enforce it, I.E a government, and a very powerful one at that. Oh, I'm sorry Mr.Factory owner, you are now State-Unit #3, you will produce what we tell you, when we tell you, how we tell you, even if it results in useless surplus or destructive shortages. WIthout at least a partial police state, the factory owner would never agree or allow that to happen. Not an ideal, an overbearing tyranny with a thinly veiled reference to "the people". I don't want to leave out the other group of course "others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy." Ahhh, the utopianists.....Invariably, these well meaning fellows pave the road to hell with good intentions and merrily skip down it. They soon find out that much to their frustration, they are unable to effect their agenda fast enough, or strongly enough and start to take steps down the nationalist road. This never happens? Hitler. Pol Pot. Lenin. Stalin. FARC and hundreds of others. Remember, those who truly follow socialist ideals yearn for the higest form of communism. As to the national ID card... Britain tried to do it in the 1980's. Why? To track "hooligans". What is a hooligan? Whatever the government decides at the time. In china, they are issuing these that contain things like work history, religion, education background and reproductive history. Uhhhhh... What does THAT have to do with anything? Oh wait, its to control the population. No? My link In the words of Michael Lin, vice president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology "If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future". There are currently 15 states in America that have passed legislation prohibiting the implementation of RealID (what they tried to ram down our throats as a National ID card). 10 more have passed resolution denouncing it and are on the way to prohibiting it. 6 more either have legislation that has passed one chamber or has been introduced. Obviously enough people realize based on history, its not such a good idea. I left out Nazi germany because thats obvious and too easy. It's a cop-out, an easy way for the Gov't to do a major power grab from its citizens in times of distress. More? Sri Lanka, I think it's like 16 and over you have to have one and you must carry it at all times...why? Just look at the chaos there. Do these national ID cards do anything to secure anyone or anything? Nope. But they do give your friendly, kindly uncle government a way to track you wherever you go and whatever you do. Yes, we have this in a disjointed fashion now, but nothing unified or coherent. Hrmmm....If I'm a criminal, I'm not inclined to have one so they arent tracking the bad guys, they are just tracking....wait....citizens who try to obey the laws...Why would they track the law-abiding? You need to keep the sheep in the pen for when it's time to clip their wool. Nope, I'm not a conspiracy fanatic, anti-government, or anything more than a student of history. When a country becomes complacent with its freedoms, it allows an ever increasing carnival of tyranny to arise. Only when the conditions become so unbearable do enough people rise up and say enough. Interesting discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3ftY. Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 joe sorry but you should have no say. canada is different from america ... anyway obamacare is 100% bullshit why do SUCESSFULL PEOPLE have to pay for hobos. also it is different in america. where i live some people go to the er just to sleep their and not on the streets. oh and we pay for that (the sucessful people). the difference here i can see north of the 49th parallel is we have health care for everyone - not a selected group, nor a selected race, nor a selected religion but everyone is entitled to basic health care. newly landed immigrants are no exception. its called providing basic health care to everyone. oh, and yes, we all pay into it. but so effin what. at least i know when i get taken to the emergency room because of an accident i dont have to get out my amex because its all covered! its not perfect but it sure works. the US media have dissected the obama plan to no end because there maybe some underlying deviance or misrepresentation ready to steal what you are entitled to. and unfortunately because of the cynics and distrust with the government nothing can be taken for granted as a simple straight forward plan that benefits the entire nation. sad. something as simple as health care should be have been part of the US long ago. but its become so tangled and twisted and fought over it's not even worth debating over anymore. scrap the whole thing and start over or just fuggedaboutit all together. no one will ever be satisfied with the result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeM Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 Why is that FEM? Could you give us an example? Here you go to a doctor's office, and you actually see the doctor for like 5 minutes. He doesnt know your name, he doesnt know who you are. If you call in with an "emergency", he wont pick up the phone. If you have an itchy nose, they prescribe antibiotics, if you have a cough, they prescribe antibiotics. If you have a stain on your forehead, they prescribe antibiotics.... what kinda doctor is that? If I knew it was that easy to be a doctor.. JUST PRESCRIBE ANTIBIOTICS... dude.. I'd become one... Besides, overuse of antibiotics are the cause of those super resistant bacterias that have been killing people here and there.. but who cares right?? Just go ahead and take some more antibiotics. Back home, you go to a doctor's office... to see the doctor.. no nurse, no PA.. you are with the doctor, from the beginning to the end. They know who you are, why you are there. You can actually have access to their cellphone number, personal email, etc. You can actually talk to THEM at an emergency. Plus, if you have anything wrong.. they will examine, run tests, before they prescribe stuff without knowing what u got. I'll drink to that! Granted not many people would agree with you on that considering the amount of obese people I see every day walking the streets. People now a days want immediate cure, immediate effects. Sorry, but miracles dont happen like that. Tylenol wont cure your cold... it will just mask the symptoms.. how about trying to prevent getting a cold by having a healthy diet with plenty of vitamin C and exercise? That combo surely improves your immune system and may prevent not only a cold, but other kinds of sicknesses. Pills to loose weight... Yeah right.. take it.. loose 40 pounds in one month.. and gain 80 back in about 2 weeks.... Keep in mind, that for whatever pill or drug you take, there is going to be a side effect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malokyte Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 ------------------------------------------- Really? Tell that to the people who rose up against Pol Pot. Or the people who rose up against Hitler. Or the people who rose up against Lenin or Stalin. You could of course go "Nuh uh! hitler was a nazi! Pol Pot was communist! stalin? communist!", Lenin was definitely socialst, based on Marx and unfortunately, socialism is only a few slim shades away from either facism or communism. They all embrace much greater governmental intrusion and in one form or another the consolidation of power in a small unified body.. Call it a polit-beureau, a council, a reich...all the same thing. --------------------------------------------- You have to look at what separates them in history from today. Most of these people came into power when the country was in a serious crisis, where people were desperate. And not what some people might say about today's economy, that's child's play compared to what the people in those countries were in. Germany was so shit deep into debt and inflation that ANYBODY would look for a possible savior. Lenin came into power after the peasant revolt over Czar Nicolas II. Pol Pot had taken power when the government was stifling opposition through the democratic process. Stalin is the only person you can say came to power with total control already established. The rest had earned their status through popular revolt or popular election. The citizens chose their fate. And they accepted the changes long enough to let the powers cement their control. America, on the other hand, still has a fully functioning democracy setup with checks and balances that prevent such power from being established without almost total support from the population. You'd need a pretty big conspiracy theory and whole lot of imagination to believe that somebody coming to power as a dictator in this country is plausible. ----------------------------------------------------- If socialism were just a political ideal without muscle, teeth, and a system of government it would be a theory and not a reality. In fact, most times it can be described as a socialist system. Social democrats for example want to much around with capitalism by tampering with private companies to acheive their view of the socialist system. Socialism could be broken down into two ways to reach that wonderful utopian state of universal suffering...Either from the elite or from the masses, usually the "laborers". ------------------------------------------------ Socialism is still an ideal. An ideal can have power, but it still remains an ideal. Ideals only have the power that people bestow on them. Democracy was initially an ideal. If nobody supported the ideal of rule by the people, democracy would hold no power. It would not have been able to evolve into a political system. True socialism has not been achieved, and as such its still an ideal. And like most ideals, it is best to pursue it in baby steps to work out the kinks along the way. Incorporating socialism into a democracy is fully plausible, as you may have a power(s) to determine the economic scene, but that remains in the economic sphere. The political sphere is still controlled by democracy and, as such, if a power(s) does poorly, they can be voted out of office through general election, or a forced resignation. Also the concept of universal suffering is significantly better than isolated suffering. When everyone suffers, they suffer to a lesser degree. When a small group suffers, their suffering is more profound and agonizing. Besides, the distribution of wealth is not an exact division between the people. It is the taking of wealth from those who are fortunate and giving it to the less fortunate. The richest people in the world understand that they don't need that much money. They very often just give money away as charitable donations. It's the upper middle class that complains about it the most because they assume they'll be taxed just as heavily as the upper class. A graduated taxing system would still give more wealth to those who earn more, but it puts less of a strain on the poor, and provides them with basic needs that they cannot provide, or their economic ability prohibits them from providing effectivly. It also allows the middle class to still keep their hard earned cash, but it takes the upper class, the people that have too much money to begin with, and directs a partial amount of their income to those that need it more. They don't need another Cadillac or whatever the hell they drive nowadays. Somebody though will need another meal. Probably several thousand somebodies. ------------------------------------------------ What you have in those European countries are hybrids of several types of government, without a single true socialist government, even Russia today is more of a Capitalist-communism. Lets use an easy to google definition of socialism : "A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation" That last piece of the last sentence should stand out, translation : Forced re-allocation of wealth and resources. ------------------------------------------ If America adopts a socialized healthcare system, it does not mean it is now a socialist state. It becomes a hybrid of a socialist-democracy, which is what most European countries are. This only further proves my point of the paranoia amongst the American population. And "forced re-allocation of wealth and resources" has a shorter name for it: taxes. And guess what? You already have them. -------------------------------------- "A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy" Complete nationalisation of the means of production. Thats not an ideal, thats a direct form of intervention that is only possible if you have the means to enforce it, I.E a government, and a very powerful one at that. Oh, I'm sorry Mr.Factory owner, you are now State-Unit #3, you will produce what we tell you, when we tell you, how we tell you, even if it results in useless surplus or destructive shortages. WIthout at least a partial police state, the factory owner would never agree or allow that to happen. Not an ideal, an overbearing tyranny with a thinly veiled reference to "the people". -------------------------------------------------- And again, this is the assumption that America will magically morph into a socialist state. Again I will say, it only becomes a socialist state if you allow it. And once again, the assumption that socialism = tyranny. Socialism is not socialism if it relies on tyranny. You have ruined the point of socialism once you throw "the people" out the window, so you cannot call any dictator orientated state a "socialist state" And again, it is the pairing of an economic system with a political system. Notice how your definition makes no mention to political office. You assume that tyranny and socialism have to go hand in hand, but there is no binding requirement between them. It all depends on what the people allow. All government is just an extension of the power the people give them. If the people are not willing to give the power, then the government holds no power. If you allow yourself to get surpressed by a tyrant, you have relinquished your power. If you truly do not believe in the system that you are stuck in, you would believe you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. You would revolt, and take back the power of the people. ------------------------------------------------------ I don't want to leave out the other group of course "others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy." Ahhh, the utopianists.....Invariably, these well meaning fellows pave the road to hell with good intentions and merrily skip down it. They soon find out that much to their frustration, they are unable to effect their agenda fast enough, or strongly enough and start to take steps down the nationalist road. This never happens? Hitler. Pol Pot. Lenin. Stalin. FARC and hundreds of others. Remember, those who truly follow socialist ideals yearn for the higest form of communism. --------------------------------- You have to look at these people really closely if you want to detect the problem with pairing them with socialist failure. For one, Hitler wasn't just for the people, he was AMAZINGLY popular with the German people. He brought them prosperity they had thought long gone. They would die for him if necessary. History has a habit though of distorting the facts to paint the winner in a better light. Hitler did atrocities, yes, he eventually did some of the worst war crimes ever seen. But that is now a political agenda you are looking at, not the economic agenda. Economically, Hitler was a godsend for the German people. Pol Pot. Sent people to the rural areas for agricultural purposes. Admittadely, he did not have popular support, but his concept for the economics of it is understandable. Self-sufficiency is what he was trying to achieve. When Cambodia can support itself, it is free to then pursue other venues with the least amount of capital lost. Economically, his plan was fairly sound. Politically though, he bungled up badly. Lenin, again the people wanted socialism, they wanted communism. So Lenin gave it to them. But again he bungled up with politics, not the economics. It's the politics which dragged his economics down. Same with Stalin. And FARC isn't even a government. You cannot pair a resistance movement with government. ---------------------------- As to the national ID card... Britain tried to do it in the 1980's. Why? To track "hooligans". What is a hooligan? Whatever the government decides at the time. In china, they are issuing these that contain things like work history, religion, education background and reproductive history. Uhhhhh... What does THAT have to do with anything? Oh wait, its to control the population. No? My link In the words of Michael Lin, vice president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology "If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future". There are currently 15 states in America that have passed legislation prohibiting the implementation of RealID (what they tried to ram down our throats as a National ID card). 10 more have passed resolution denouncing it and are on the way to prohibiting it. 6 more either have legislation that has passed one chamber or has been introduced. Obviously enough people realize based on history, its not such a good idea. I left out Nazi germany because thats obvious and too easy. It's a cop-out, an easy way for the Gov't to do a major power grab from its citizens in times of distress. More? Sri Lanka, I think it's like 16 and over you have to have one and you must carry it at all times...why? Just look at the chaos there. Do these national ID cards do anything to secure anyone or anything? Nope. But they do give your friendly, kindly uncle government a way to track you wherever you go and whatever you do. Yes, we have this in a disjointed fashion now, but nothing unified or coherent. Hrmmm....If I'm a criminal, I'm not inclined to have one so they arent tracking the bad guys, they are just tracking....wait....citizens who try to obey the laws...Why would they track the law-abiding? You need to keep the sheep in the pen for when it's time to clip their wool. ----------------------------- Again, distinguishing between a valid use of a national I.D. card and a tyrannical purpose of an I.D. card is necessary. Most of the reasons you stated are for tyrannical purposes, and that's understandable what you fear. However, you also state a valid use: law enforcement. If you have a fugitive on the run, and he's required to have a national I.D. card to access banks, gun stores, or anything that might be of use to him, he's in a much tighter situation. It becomes easier to catch him, to corner him. He is stuck in a world where he cannot escape the law because the law has determined him a criminal. However, that's a theory, so I understand why you'd be afraid of a national I.D. card because chances are human nature would buttf*** the theory. ---------------------------- Nope, I'm not a conspiracy fanatic, anti-government, or anything more than a student of history. When a country becomes complacent with its freedoms, it allows an ever increasing carnival of tyranny to arise. Only when the conditions become so unbearable do enough people rise up and say enough. Interesting discussion ---------------- And yet, there is still room for debate in history, for history is the interpretation by the winner. As such, history is still up for interpretation. And just saying, but European countries are much more vocal about their rights than America, so they keep radical behaviour relatively in line. America is afraid of their government, and stuck with an entitlement problem. All originating from the Cold War, which I must say really might actually be the cause of America's downfall. And yes, this is indeed an interesting discussion. Haven't had the chance for a good rant in a while. Hmmm.... won't let me quote properly... reformatting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connection Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 without getting into debates over political ideals, i just want to say what i think is behind all the trouble here. it seems to me that this is a no-brainer. should everyone have access to health care? or should health care be a privilege that only the rich can afford? well dammit, i believe everyone should have access to health care. america is one of the richest nations in the world, with some of the best doctors and medical equipment in the world. in my home town, i'd guess at least 35% of the economy is the medical profession. we have 4 hospitals in a town of 45,000 people, and every time i look at the want ads, it's 95% medical jobs ( the others - 4% truck driving school and about 0.5% work from home scams. there's usually 2-3 actual jobs, if you don't have a medical degree. ) point being there is no lack of qualified people and facilities. what's lacking is distribution and ... wait for it... insurance. there are much -touted statistics about how we spend more $$$ here on medicine than any other country in the world, and yet 100's of millions of people can't afford to go to a doctor here. there is no argument that our system is not broken. it's broken. now here's why: for-profit medicine and an insurance industry entrenched like an effin dog tick. i know there are hospitals that are not for-profit, but they get supplies etc. from for-profit medical supply companies and pharmaceutical companies. there's a for-profit market behind even the most benevolent of charity hospitals - as much as they want to do pro-bono work, they have to pay for the means to do it. i believe the best solution IS a socialized medicine, but this simply can't happen, because the insurance mega-coorps will lose so much - there is no place for insurance companies in such a system. you've got to remember that most americans ( just like most people everywhere, i expect ) are sheep. pure and simple. they believe and think and vote for whatever glen beck or wheover else on TV tells them. they vote whatever way the NRA newsletter tells them to vote. they don't think for themselves. so how do you get public opinion on your side, if people don't really think for themselves? advertising dollars. who is going to win a national debate depends sadly on who has the most money to blow on forcing ideas out the television and into american's heads. last june, 78% of poll responders where saying they support a public option. then came the republican national party and the republican national tea party with all this rhetoric and scaremongering, blowing miliions and millions of dollars telling everyone that obama is the antichrist, that a public insurance option = communism, how terrible everything would be if poor people could afford to get prostrate exams, etc. by february, the same ~ 75% of poll responders said they were against the democrat's health care bill. still a majority were pro-reform, and responded that they were for the individual parts of the bill if they were asked specific questions, but if you as are you for the bill, CLICK they respond just like the TV told them to respond. advertising dollars at work. all the rhetoric when broken down is like %90 pure BS -- like the points in the original post of this thread - you actually look up the references in the bill, and half aren't even there, alot after that are completely misread, etc -- a pack of lies. but people don't read the health care bill ( why does it mater what they think of the legislation, if they don't read the legislation?? i ask you. ) people watch TV. people read angry, incoherent blogs. they don't fact-check that crap. they just swallow it. all this takes money. lots and lots of money. a lot of this is just the damn 2-party system, where we have basically a 4-year long re-election campaign, and who cares if congress doesn't anything as long as my party is in power. but the sources of funding for all this anti-reform propaganda isn't the well-meaning patriots that are seriously afraid that this will screw up health care - it's the interests that stand to lose many more billions of dollars when all this reform goes into effect. this bill is no where near perfect, and very compromised in intent. who knows how it's going to pan out in decades to come, when future presidents get to appoint people who mean to tank the system to the right positions. i think it's a step towards what we ought to do, but i doubt very much that we will ever get there, until the insurance industry bellys up. i just don't think when it comes down to it the argument has any basis in what is best for the country or for the people of this country - it's about the market economy underpinning it. there just can't be meaningful reform to this system so long as so much money is tied up in it. no one is going to give up their cash cows without a fight. lol credit card = national ID card anyone?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCrows Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 (edited) without getting into debates over political ideals, i just want to say what i think is behind all the trouble here. it seems to me that this is a no-brainer. should everyone have access to health care? or should health care be a privilege that only the rich can afford? well dammit, i believe everyone should have access to health care. america is one of the richest nations in the world, with some of the best doctors and medical equipment in the world. in my home town, i'd guess at least 35% of the economy is the medical profession. we have 4 hospitals in a town of 45,000 people, and every time i look at the want ads, it's 95% medical jobs ( the others - 4% truck driving school and about 0.5% work from home scams. there's usually 2-3 actual jobs, if you don't have a medical degree. ) point being there is no lack of qualified people and facilities. what's lacking is distribution and ... wait for it... insurance. The reason you see so many job ads for medical professionals is because there IS a lack of them. You are seeing what everywhere else in the country is seeing. you've got to remember that most americans ( just like most people everywhere, i expect ) are sheep. pure and simple. they believe and think and vote for whatever glen beck or wheover else on TV tells them. they vote whatever way the NRA newsletter tells them to vote. they don't think for themselves. Heh, I agree whole-heartedly with the sheep part, my friends usually call them sheeple. But I detect another undercurrent in there though...If it werent for those evil little groups like the NRA and the people who support them, we may very well have the same wonderful utopia that other disarmed nations like England have, where you the home-owner can be sued by the person who breaks in and attempts to do you harm and in the process gets hurt himself. Yes thats right, you too can be sued/jailed, by a criminal in the process of committing a crime, for injuring that criminal in self defense. Oh I'm sorry Mr.Murdering robber, I didnt mean to give you a bruise trying to fend you off! No way you say!! ORLY? Can't hurt the poor thieves you're joking right? Criminals allowed to sue for getting hurt There are more of course, but those are pretty funny...and sad all at once. a lot of this is just the damn 2-party system, where we have basically a 4-year long re-election campaign, and who cares if congress doesn't anything as long as my party is in power. but the sources of funding for all this anti-reform propaganda isn't the well-meaning patriots that are seriously afraid that this will screw up health care - it's the interests that stand to lose many more billions of dollars when all this reform goes into effect. I'll agree that politicians spend more time on the campaign trail than they do actually doing anything, ALL of them, yes, including those all-benevolent and kindly democrats lol credit card = national ID card anyone?? Yup, a defacto one, but again, not centralized, not government owned and explicitly for that purpose. It's good to see people with strong opinions (who don't just fall into the pit of personal attack) this country was built on a room full of people with strong opinions who were willing to debate it out with reason and leave us a legacy of freedom. Edited April 5, 2010 by TwoCrows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 ugh people are writing too much... let me just say this. i think health care needs to be reformed. but goverment takeover is not the rite option. like i said earlier if they cant run medicare and medicaid why are we giving them the power to run everyones healthcare. also i dont want any goverment a**h**** telling people who lives and dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.