Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: nensondubois on August 07, 2009, 02:29:22 PM
-
Let's discuss the good, the bad and the ugly about Obama's preposterous idea for health care reform.
Pros
- Free painkillers!
Cons
- Just pop a pill and you'll be fine! No surgery needed!
- Millions of people will die by 2012!
- Hundreds and thousands of doctors will be lost!
- Counselors will remind you that your expiration is near!
- America will go bankrupt and become a third world country!
- Democrats gain more power and the Free Masons will ultimately succeed in starting the world over.
- The Number of drug abusers will significantly increase at a dismal rate!
-
And you know this how?
-
What a reasonable and accurate assessment of the issues
-
Pros:
-Free health care! :D
Cons:
-Who's going to pay for all of it?
-Doctors may be forced to perform abortions, since they're funded (thus controlled) by the state.
-The government will control another area of life that they have no business controlling.
-Proper health care will be refused to those deemed by the government to be not worth treating (why waste time and money treating old people who will die in a few years anyway?).
-
The health care system Obama is pushing to implement is nearly identical to what we Canadians have had for for over forty years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)). As exemplified above, many critics have been going out of their way to overblow the cons of Universal Health Care. In reality, the only significant downside is that waiting lists for non-critical medical cases to be treated will be lengthened.
The primary benefit of "Canadian-style" health care is that is doesn't put a price tag on your life. A homeless bum could receive cancer treatment alongside a millionaire, regardless of whether or not he's able to shell out enough cash to buy the doctor another SUV. Similarly, expecting couples wouldn't attempt risky at-home deliveries just because they can't afford the several-thousand-dollar hospital bill. Canadian doctors are also paid a closer-to-reasonable salary, thus sucking less money out of the economy for less-worthy causes.
Oh, and health care is never refused to anyone needing it here.
-
Pros
- Free painkillers!
Pros:
-Free health care! :D
BTW, you people really don't know what's actually going on. While I disagree with most of his views, at least CE7 is smart and knowledgable and I always respect him for it.
-
Please enlighten us, Lizard Dude.
-
OBAMA IS GOAN DISTROAY THIS NASHUN
HE GOAN TAKE AWAY ARE RIGHTS AND WE ALL GOAN DY
-
You're absolutely right, it's not free. Someone's got to pay for it.
-Who's going to pay for all of it?
-
Someone's got to pay for it.
Expect tax increases, which will suck... unless you're the one paying $5000 for your baby to be born. It's an issue where you have to broaden your mind to think outside of your own wallet and into the interests of others.
-
The interests of others are all well and good, but the government has no business taking money from my wallet and putting it into someone else's. I smell socialism.
Look, it's not that we shouldn't be concerned about people who can't afford health care, on the contrary. But we should be concerned about who's providing for them, and where the provision is going to come from.
-
I think nenson was trolling when he made this topic (or at least being really sarcastic).
-
No, nenson's just an imbecile. He always has been, he always will be.
-
I think all of you guys are underplaying the obvious SOVIET threat to our nation with the institution of SOCIALIST policies. Have you all already forgotten what COMMUNISM did to the world in the past?
On a completely unrelated topic, have any of you guys read Animal Farm? That's the one with the spider and pig. I love that book.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peteress.com%2Fsomepig.jpg&hash=c8458d2142c64399907134835d10fe9d)
-
I want Obama to be honest and slow down. He has said before, quite clearly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=related), that he ultimately wants a Eurocanadia-style single-payer system, but now he's swearing up and down that he's never wanted anything of the sort and this bill has nothing to do with that, and we get inane propaganda videos from the White House like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XCl6OHgiM), telling us that we should just accept the prepackaged press conference statements regardless of anything else. And if we hear anyone disagree with it, now we're supposed to report them (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/). And for some reason, we absolutely have to get this passed right now or everything will explode, along with all the other dozen or so giant spending bills that we absolutely have to pass without reading.
A single-payer system may well have its merits, but we can't discuss them until Obama is honest about it and gives us time to slow down and think about it a bit. Furthermore, for all the benefits it may have, we simply can't afford it right now. Projections say that the national debt is already going to be around $20 trillion in ten years. This healthcare bill is supposed to only be another trillion and a half, but the government doesn't exactly have a stellar track record for staying on budget. For example, look at the Cash For Clunkers thing. They thought a billion dollars would be enough for four months, and instead it ran out after four days. They underestimated the cost of that one by about 2000%. Something does need to be done about healthcare, but not something that will make our debt skyrocket even more. Bush doubled it from $5 trillion to about $11 trillion, Obama's planning on doubling it again in a similar time frame, and that's the best case scenario. What happens if the government turns out to have drastically underestimated the cost again, like they did for Medicare?
-
Good points by CrossEyed and good satire by Black Mage. My personal belief is that universal health care would be very beneficial, but we need to clearly define how we will implement it before people start crying about death and socialism and the sky falling.
-
No, nenson's just an imbecile. He always has been, he always will be.
I may not be all that great at discussions and whatnot but I'm [darn] good at hacking.
Obama also stated that he wants the wealthy to pickup the tab.
-
Post of the year candidate (assuming we even have the awards this year).
-
What bothers me is how people who voted for Obama are complaining about it themselves. What the hell did they expect?
Personally though, I don't think nationalizing healthcare is the way to go. I just find it comical that congress keeps okaying things like it, after vowing to be a change from Bush's rapid expansion of the federal government and enormous expenditures. Way to become everything you hate, the Democratic Party.
-
I think you're confused. Democrats are supposed to spend money helping the public. That's what liberal means. Republicans are the ones who were forced to become what they hate.
-
They're all going to spend us into oblivion, and with the Republican party's leaning more to the left recently, there seems to be less and less difference between the two.
-
I think you're confused. Democrats are supposed to spend money helping the public. That's what liberal means. Republicans are the ones who were forced to become what they hate.
No, I wasn't implying that democrats don't spend money. I was implying that they were behaving just the same as Bush did in terms of federal expansion, making them the same as him in that department essentially.
-
Are you talking about the bailout?
-
Not just the bailout, just the fact he spent money carelessly himself. Military, undercover programs too. Many people who criticized him for it also likely voted for Obama, who is now spending even more money and further extending the federal government's power.
-
He's also planning on staying in Iraq longer than Bush was going to, iirc.
-
Bailout was pretty bipartisan man, and started in the previous administration.
"Obama, who is now spending even more money and further extending the federal government's power." -- Again, American liberalism is about strong government.
And yes, CE7, we might as well blame Iraq on Obama while we're at it. *rollseyes*
-
I'm not blaming the whole thing on him, I'm saying that toward the end of his administration Bush said he was planning on leaving Iraq in early 2011, and now Obama's planning on leaving in late 2011 and still leaving 50,000 troops there after we're "gone." Or maybe it was 2010. I just remember that they were both the same year, but Bush's date was earlier.
-
I know the bailout was started last administration, I'm not stupid. I said that Bush was criticized for accepting the bailout and being fine with it, but meanwhile its sister, the stimulus package, is being readily accepted by a lot of people who complained about Bush signing off on TARP.
In that same line, I never said liberalism isn't about big government. I'm stating that many democrats criticized Bush for many of his liberal-esque actions, but when Obama does the same, he's President Rico Suave.
-
Important educational video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0)
-
A) What is up with that guy's dancing?
B) The slo-mo piggy bank smash was cool.
-
All I know is that there is absolutely nothing about this proposed health care system that can, in any way, be compared to anything the Nazis did at any point in history in several dimensions.
-
I have been accused of making a slippery slope argument with this one, but I'll test it here anyway.
The USPS is not doing too well, and Obama himself has stated this. Yet, in the same speech, he was quick to note that UPS and FedEx are flourishing. Hmmm... interesting. The bureaucratic Postal Service is struggling, yet privatized companies are doing well. If the government can't pull off a feat like delivering my mail more successfully than private companies, how can it possibly take on health care effectively?
I also question the complexity and political jargon in the bill itself. I'd much prefer to see a well-written, organized, and logical bill than the current jumble of a bill sitting on capitol here right now. 1,500 pages is a daunting task for the congresspeople alone, let alone for the common man whom this bill actually effects. Complex problems, of course, have simple, easy to understand wrong answers, but this level of complexity and confusion is so great that most "Joe the Plumbers" in America cannot but help to struggle with the exact MEANING of health care. With a document so big, it is also easy to slip in pork and other nonsense.
Have you ever hit a tube of toothpaste with a hammer? Probably not. Luckily, I have for you. Not all the paste comes out the end, and the tube, not surprisingly ruptures. I fear a similar situation when health care reform is smashed through the system at such a hammer-like velocity.
Another tough problem facing me in the midst of this whole debate is the portrayal of "the other side" by both parties or ideologies. False name-calling, political games, careful editing of newsworthy clips to fit an agenda by the media, and the like create a real debacle when one tries to carefully asses the situation at hand. Trying to surf through the liberals' portrayal of the right as frightened pawns of Rush Limbaugh alone has almost alienated me from the plan. If anyone disagrees with this policy, the liberal media can twist the situation so that it appears to be a case of racist hate against a black president. (See the first few minutes of this informative, albeit conservative, video: http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/___MSNBC_&_The_Great_Liberal_Narrative:_The_Truth_About_The_Tyranny_of_Political_Correctness/2343/) But, at the same time, we see the conservative talk radio crowd dismissing all supporters of the plan as radical Marxists with an insatiable desire to ruin the American capitalist way and turn it into Soviet Russia.
Clearly, many issues are at play with the so called "health care reform." Would it be prudent now, with the federal deficit growing even greater and the advent of unsuccessful stimulative programs (i.e.,CARS) which have no real, tangible end, to force a paradigm shift on the entire American people without enough time for everyone to more fully understand the nuances of the issue? I vote no. Surely, something must be done about America's health care policies -- there's no doubt about that. But first we really need to know what "health care reform" entails. That means careful research on the part of social scientists, diligent and honest philosophical discussion concerning the moral and ethical repercussions of such a plan, and earnest political discussion that seeks not to alienate parties but rather to build bridges between both seemingly ever-opposed factions. Let's take a breather here. With the very notion of American life as we know it hanging in the balance for the forseeable future and beyond, ought we to take a sledgehammer to the tube of tooth paste, when squeezing it out gradually will almost certainly hold a brighter future for us all?
-
If the government can't pull off a feat like delivering my mail more successfully than private companies, how can it possibly take on health care effectively?
That's a "non sequitur" that you followed with a "slippery slop" argument. You went on with some good and bad arguments IMO, but I don't' have time to go into them now. Regardless, I praise your thoughtful post.
-
Having seen firsthand how insurance companies work (I worked for one) -- I think it is a lot more scary to have a group of people doing everything they can to make a profit making decisions about your health than the government.
As for the "we can't spend more money" argument, I forgot, I think there was some kind of conflict we initiated that cost trillions of dollars in deficit spending that happened not too long ago but my mind is fuzzy.
-
So because Republicans were stupid and spent trillions of dollars we couldn't afford, Democrats should get a chance to even the score and do the same thing now, when we have even less money?
-
I think it's hilarious that the right is only "fiscally conservative" when they aren't in power.
-
There's always a fiscally conservative contingent, which rarely gets into power and always complains rather consistently about both sides.
-
I think it's hilarious that the right is only "fiscally conservative" when they aren't in power.
The Right, or the Republicans? There seems to be a growing difference between the two.
By definition, the Right is always conservative.
-
What's more confusing: Having political parties whose names have absolutely nothing to do with what they stand for, or ones named after their political orientation? As you can see by the expertly-constructed graph below, our Conservatives are less conservative than your Republicans, while our Liberals are more liberal than your Democrats... or the government of North Korea.
-
A quick approximation as I see it.
-
...Did you make that, CrossEyed?
Regardless, Kim Jong-Il would be gettin' those chicks whether or not he was the totalitarian dictator of their nation. Oh, and the placement of "modern liberals" is remarkably true.
-
I have always found it both disturbing and hilarious that some people think anarchy is a good idea (not counting the emo teens who just draw circle-A's on their notebook and call it a day).
-
Depends on the participants in the anarchy, I guess. If there were a group of people who seriously didn't want authority over each other it might work fine.
-
Why is Bill Maher on that chart?
-
I'm against it and am especially against the proposal requiring Americans to get insurance. I don't want health insurance!!! (I don't go to doctors and just try to "ride it out" when I have something--which always works fine; I'm the guy who doesn't miss anything because of a minor cold or something and had perfect attendance in school).
There are talks comparing it to automobile insurance. However, there's a big difference there. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You don't have to get that automobile insurance if you don't drive. There's no law saying you need to drive, either, and some people don't even need to--I've got a buddy who moved to DC and he doesn't have a car because in DC there is no need for one thanks to their excellent public transit system. Same goes for my friend who moved to NYC--she left her car at home. Neither are forced to buy automobile insurance.
Living in America should not involve a mandatory payment to buy health insurance. You can theoretically live in America and not have to pay taxes (provided you don't own property, don't work, and buy stuff that doesn't include sales tax). That won't change if this awful bill is passed. However, if you are now forced to buy insurance, you're screwed if you don't have the money. I guess I'll be asking for an insurance plan I wouldn't use for Christmas so that I can spend my money on stuff that matters to me.
I hope this provision gets squashed like a bug when this thing gets voted on this week. If it somehow makes it out of the senate it will hopefully die in the house before it hits Obama, who clearly doesn't know the difference between something that must be bought for a privilege that one does not have to exercise (auto insurance) versus something that he thinks should be purchased just to live in this country, which won't exactly be known for freedom anymore if this happens. Obama lied to us because I believe he once said he wouldn't make it mandatory.
Also, since I'm new here, I guess I should say that I'm predominantly Republican in my views although I oppose guns entirely. I voted McCain last year and voted Bush in 2004. I'll hopefully be voting for Bobby Jindal in 2012!!!
-
I don't go to doctors
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unknownhighway.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fwhite_trash.jpg&hash=dac4bbac5755303ef59b43ac9546cd3f)
-
In all honesty, that's something that I truly fear with this reform. I would think Congress would do something first about the rising costs of health care before making health insurance mandatory.
I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but what are your (directed at everyone) feelings towards a more socialist health plan if it were to ever be incorporated into the US system? I know the chances of this are probably a complete sliver due to the connotations it carries, but it is an interesting scenario that always brings good points from both sides I've noticed.
-
I'm the guy who doesn't miss anything because of a minor cold or something and had perfect attendance in school
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democracyinaction.org%2Fdia%2ForganizationsORG%2Fruckus%2Fimages%2Fquarantine2.jpg&hash=cedc8c6af85bd7cf67de8905d59f529f)
-
So the Senate voted down a motion that would add a statement into any upcoming healthcare bills that would regulate the distribution by requiring citizens to provide proof of their identity before they can collect healthcare benefits. Essentially it's just a measure to prevent illegal immigrants from getting free healthcare.
...why the hell would anyone want to vote that down?
-
Having seen firsthand how insurance companies work (I worked for one) -- I think it is a lot more scary to have a group of people doing everything they can to make a profit making decisions about your health than the government.
As for the "we can't spend more money" argument, I forgot, I think there was some kind of conflict we initiated that cost trillions of dollars in deficit spending that happened not too long ago but my mind is fuzzy.
I completely agree. The insurance companies do far worse. In Texas (my beloved home state) alone, 1 in 4 are without health insurance. 1.4 million children are without health insurance, and those fortunate enough to have good insurance spend an inordinate amount to pay for it. In all, Texas has the highest percentage of insured residents at 27%. So are the insurance/private companies really doing their job? I think not.
Forgive me for "bumping" this topic but I've been doing a bit of research on Texas and its health care woes. For example, Rick Perry created a health care privatization scheme that gave $899 million to a private Bermuda-based company, a plan that made it as difficult as possible for parents to get health care for their kids. Hm...I wonder why the Texas Pharmacy Business Council is endorsing Gov. Rick Perry for re-election? He doesn't care about the working poor, he just wants endorsement from businesses and insurance companies. And to think he's running for an unprecedented third consecutive four-year term in 2010....
"The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provided health coverage to over 500,000 Texas children in working families was doing fine until the Republicans gained control of the Legislature in 2003. Since then, the number of children receiving healthcare through CHIP has dropped by more than 213,000, or over 40%." I'm sorry, but the status-quo isn't doing Texas any favors. Immediate reform is needed IMO. "Socialized" medicine, as my father puts it, is better than no medicine at all.
EDIT: Also, we could pay for health-care reform if we cut military spending by 50% or more. Right now, only 2% of the federal budget is spent on science. Simply disgusting.
-
I must say that with the recent scramble to ram this bill up our rear ends before the year is out, nay, even before Christmas, CE7's post seems even more accurate in hindsight, and Obama's agenda seems even more frightening.
What is this about making new additions to the legislation even now? Is anyone reading this bill? Does anyone know what the consequences will be, whether they be good or bad? Does anyone even care?
-
Obama's agenda seems even more frightening.
The 45 million without health insurance might disagree with you.
-
The 45 million without health insurance might disagree with you.
Don't misunderstand my point by taking that out of context. I'm not saying we don't need to fix health care. Nor am I apathetic to those 45 million (as a matter of curiosity, where did you get that statistic?). What frightens me is the aforementioned scramble to rush the bill through before the 25th. It's obvious that neither side of the issue has read the legislation in its entirety. That coupled with the hurry-scurry and frantic insistence on passing the bill as quickly as possible gives me the impression that there's something in there that isn't meant to be uncovered until it's too late (as in, when someone finds out they're... heh, un-covered). Putting aside whether health care is important or not (and it is), I'm only questioning whether this particular bill is the way to help matters.
Rather like with environmental issues, if someone is opposed to the regulation or government control of a certain area, then suddenly they're branded as unpatriotic, or not caring about the issue at all. If I don't want to be taxed for the CO2 that my family and I produce, then I hate the environment. If I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's medical needs, or even if I just want to examine the bill more closely to see exactly what's being imposed on the People (the politicians seem to have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around), then I'm opposed to all health care reform and don't care about those less fortunate.
-
(as a matter of curiosity, where did you get that statistic?).
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20090910/more-americans-have-no-health-insurance
It's actually more like 46 million.
-
Where was your paranoia when Bush was proposing the invasion of Iraq?
-
We in Canada already experienced this exact issue forty years ago, when Pierre Elliot Trudeau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau), backed by a fervorous majority of change-hungry Baby Boomers, was elected Prime Minister. While his decisions to legalize same-sex marriage and abortion remain divisive and controversial (read: suck), practically every breathing Canadian appreciates and benefits from the Universal Health Care he instated. Also,
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackcommentator.com%2F334%2F334_images%2F334_cartoon_healthcare_reform_large.jpg&hash=0b7b76aeceee1c64dcdc2781b7a45e43)
-
Where was your paranoia when Bush was proposing the invasion of Iraq?
There are so many ways to respond to that.
1. I wasn't nearly so politically-minded then, so I didn't really have an opinion.
2. If I had had an opinion, I wouldn't have been on the FF at that point to voice it anyway, so of course you wouldn't have seen me speak (or type) out against it.
3. I'm rather tired of liberals playing the "you didn't complain when Bush did the same thing" card, because:
a. I, for one, wasn't any happier with Bush's spending than Obama's. It's just that Obama's is that much more excessive.
b. It doesn't make Obama's spending right.
4. "Paranoia" is a little harsh. It's not paranoia, it's expression of misgivings based on simple mathematics: if the people are taxed more, they have less money; if they have less money, the economy suffers; if the economy suffers, Obama's answer is to tax the people even more; lather, rinse, repeat, ruin. If I said that Obama were the devil or some such nonsense, then you could go ahead and call me paranoid. My calling him a socialist is verified by the facts.
Also, nice comic, Weegee.
-
I just love how people throw around the word "socialist" without really knowing what that entails.
-
Same.
-
Where was your paranoia when Bush was proposing the invasion of Iraq?
Apparently his approval rating soared to 90% around that time. Maybe that signaled that everyone was ****ed and wanted revenge. As everyone's rage calmed down, they took a step back and started *****ing about the war.
Siiigh, endless arguments and problems in the U.S. and this world. Isn't there a near-Earth asteroid that needs to hit us soon or something...
-
We live in an age of negativism, one in which our leaders' decisions seemingly must be scrutinized or faulted beyond reason. If Universal Health Care had been introduced in, say, 1962, nary a soul would have questioned JFK's motives, and most instead would have correctly assumed that he had the nation's best interests in mind. In contrast, this day and age's cultural paradigm dictates that every move our elected officials make is corrupt and subversive, and driven by some nefarious, ulterior motives.
The point is, while we obviously shouldn't follow our leaders blindly, we should recognize and respect their honest intentions. We should look at ourselves before dumping our blame on whoever we've elected to lead the nation.
-
We live in an age of negativism, one in which our leaders' decisions seemingly must be scrutinized or faulted beyond reason. If Universal Health Care had been introduced in, say, 1962, nary a soul would have questioned JFK's motives, and most instead would have correctly assumed that he had the nation's best interests in mind. In contrast, this day and age's cultural paradigm dictates that every move our elected officials make is corrupt and subversive, and driven by some nefarious, ulterior motives.
The point is, while we obviously shouldn't follow our leaders blindly, we should recognize and respect their honest intentions. We should look at ourselves before dumping our blame on whoever we've elected to lead the nation.
Great post.
I think this "age of negativism" comes from our abundance of information and products. The more choices* we have the more we think we have made the wrong choice. This sort of negativism or often near paralysis happens over an abundance of video games, jeans, or even political decisions. I've notice that this even happens with my three-year-old daughter. If I offer her two books to choice from she almost always picks one very quickly, but if I offer her eight or so to pick from she often doesn't want any of them. Never mind that back in JFK's day people didn't know about his boat rides with naked women either.
In this age I think we are also less likely to "look at ourselves" or think about our thinking before making a decision for much the same reason. It's just so much easier to simply join a crowd. It's human nature. So much so that scientists model how groups will exit a burning building or sitcom producers will pay a few people to laugh at their recordings so others will join in.
*For this post I'm ignoring the two party system that I hate.
-
I wonder where all the Canadians will go for their healthcare now that this thing looks like it's going to pass.
-
Canada I assume.
-
Really? Apparently we've had a few (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/canadian_premier_unapologetic_about_coming_to_america_for_health_care/) come over (http://crushliberalism.com/2007/07/30/canucks-come-to-america-for-health-care/) here.
Also, President Obama is totally going to be under the same health plan that's good enough for the rest of us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5VPCtxh7ow),* just like he sends his kids to the public schools that are good enough for the rest of us. Please. Do you really think the people writing this law are going to let it apply to them? No, this is just for us mortals. [/sarcasm]
*I found this embedded on a site other than YouTube and was for some reason able to watch it - when I clicked the "watch on YouTube" button, sure enough, I got the standard "error has occurred" message I've been getting for a weeks or so.
-
I highly doubt information from a website dubbed "Crush Liberalism" is credible regarding this issue.
-
Actually, TK is correct: The issue of high-profile Canadians skipping the medical waiting list by opting for private American treatment has been all over our news for quite some time.
-
What the heck is Turtlekid saying here? That rich Canadians getting care faster than poor Canadians by using the US system shows the current US system is good? But it's bad if Obama does the same thing if we adopt a more Canadian-like system?
-
I'm saying it's bad for leaders to live by a different set of rules than what they would impose on who they lead. Especially if they're elected officials.
-
True, although the double-standard isn't restricted only to government. Any Canadian who possesses absurd amounts of cash, whether they be unscrupulous elected officials, drug lords, overpaid athletes or lottery winners, are entitled to large-scale private American health care. :)
-
I know, the question is why Turtlekid brought up the Canadians? He doesn't like political leaders living by different rules but he does like rich people doing it?
-
Not necessarily, but the leaders are supposed to be setting an example. Also, the blame falls on the leaders' heads when their health care system is less than adequate, not the rich peoples' (it may not justify them, but it does make their motives understandable).
-
Why did you bring up the Canadians?
-
To show that moving toward a health care system resembling Canada's when their own government officials (who initiated Canada's current system in the first place) are coming here for medical treatment is probably not very smart.
-
So you do support rich people getting the quickest and best care, while the poor get none. (i.e., capitalism)
-
Obama's health care system boasts one key attribute which ours lacks: The retainment of the private health-care system, which, if instated in Canada, would remove the issue of government officials jumping ship altogether. In such a two-tiered system, all citizens would have access to public care, while those willing to pay for private could do so, thereby shortening the waiting list for everyone else. Simply put, ObamaCare has the makings to be more effective than our system.
moving toward a health care system resembling Canada's when their own government officials ... are coming here for medical treatment is probably not very smart.
Obama's proposed system is devoid of the flaw which caused that, voiding your concern.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F8739%2Fmonkeysmilej.jpg&hash=606b427b5da07f5fe7dd02c629a1a55a)
-
Behold, the portrait of just another sad, destitute victim of America's insufficient medical care for the poor.
(The gorilla, I mean. Not Rao.)
-
(The gorilla, I mean. Not Rao.)
You lie!
-
The bill has cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Obama has finally achieved the national health insurance that presidents (of both parties) have been trying and failing to get passed since Theodore Roosevelt's time.
Gratz.
-
We can partially thank Bush. His incompetence brought enough Democrats to the House in 2006 to pass the bill.
He should focus on the environment next.
-
So you do support rich people getting the quickest and best care, while the poor get none. (i.e., capitalism)
I support everyone working and paying his own way, not depending on nanny government to nurse him from womb to tomb. How many times must I say that while it's not a good thing that poor people aren't getting health insurance, it's not the government's job to give it to them, and certainly not their job to force people to buy insurance.
He should focus on the environment next.
Y-you're serious about this, aren't you? Doesn't it scare you that the government is already going to control what we eat? What more do you want taken away from you?
-
Y-you're serious about this, aren't you? Doesn't it scare you that the government is already going to control what we eat? What more do you want taken away from you?
We need to do something about global warming or we're going down the [dukar]ter. Sorry if actually caring about the environment more than myself scares you.
-
Whoa, that is wrong on several levels.
Level one: Most real scientists agree that [human-caused] global warming has been debunked.
Level two: Yeah, people caring about the environment more than their own well-being, especially when the environment doesn't need any help, scares me.
Level three: Even if it weren't wrong on the other two levels, I repeat: IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO REGULATE IT. It is not the government's job to do anything but to protect its country's residents from domestic and foreign threats; in other words, to provide a military and criminal justice system - that's why I find it so ironic that the military seems to be the only area of government that's getting budget cuts.
-
Level one: Most real scientists agree that [human-caused] global warming has been debunked.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flizarddude.kontek.net%2FWackyForum%2FMassFacepalm.jpg&hash=cfa42e7f8a610ca9ec9fc2439ab46cce)
-
Level one: Most real scientists agree that [human-caused] global warming has been debunked.
...proof?
Level two: Yeah, people caring about the environment more than their own well-being, especially when the environment doesn't need any help, scares me.
Typical Calvinist.
EDIT: Congratulations, your comment contained so much fail that Lizard Dude was forced to post that picture.
-
...proof?
These (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHLWwbN0SM) videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF8a3O-FHNA) from this article (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598), as well as this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html) page for just a couple of examples of reasonable evidence.
Typical Calvinist.
Not sure what this has to do with reformed theology, apart from the usual (that is, my entire worldview is due to my belief in God). But I'm not seeing a specific relation.
-
Calvinism is nothing more than a superiority complex. Why worry about the well-being of others when you and only you are saved? This applies to the environment, animals, people affected by global warming, etc.
-
Calvinism is nothing more than a superiority complex. Why worry about the well-being of others when you and only you are saved? This applies to the environment, animals, people affected by global warming, etc.
Um, because they're not saved?
I don't get what you're saying... that you think I'm content to... rest on my laurels, if you will? Do you really think I'd be debating this if I were? Do you think I'm saying these things for vindictive purposes, or that I don't give a hedgehog's patootie about it? I'm saying them because I can't in good conscience let you and people who share your beliefs just keep staring at the headlights without at least attempting a warning.
Because if I'm sure of my own salvation, you think I have no reason to care about others.
Typical atheist.
Okay, seriously, though - try to understand where I'm coming from here. It's ridiculous to assume that I'm not concerned about others' well-being when you of all people should know that Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves (again, if I weren't scared for the unsaved, I wouldn't be bothering to type this out). In fact, I've said many times that I do think it's a bad thing that there are so many people without health coverage, and that I do believe in good stewardship of the earth. What I'm arguing against is the idea that the government needs to regulate and coerce people into providing and caring. I've also said before that if you have to force someone to do good, then the good deeds are worthless. It's the same attitude that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for over and over and over again.
Also, you obviously don't understand Calvinism at all if you think it's a superiority complex. It's about as far away from it as you can get.
-
I'm saying them because I can't in good conscience let you and people who share your beliefs just keep staring at the headlights without at least attempting a warning.
Because if I'm sure of my own salvation, you think I have no reason to care about others.
I can't, in good conscience, let you keep staring at the headlights without at least attempting a warning either. I'm scared for the saved, so stop believing before it's too late.
Do you see what it sounds like?
-
The Army isn't the only thing getting budget cuts. NASA -- the part that could be doing actually useful stuff -- gets mega downsized like every year.
I can't figure out the straight story because some people say global warming is in full force, other places I've heard that we're entering a mini ice age; if not that then I hear that the earth's climate is changing due to natural cycles and no one really has enough proof since, you know, correlation can't imply causation. HOWEVER, the environment is totally more important than say, starting wars up because we're trying to control the world.
Also, Turtlekid, where does it say the government is going to control what we eat? I'm pretty sure the government can't stop me from going to a local farmer's market to get actual food to cook myself.
-
It would be in our best interest to clean up the environment even if global warming isn't happening (which it is, although some people confuse cold weather with global cooling).
-
Yes, I am in full support of cleaning up the colossal mess we've been making.
-
Also, Turtlekid, where does it say the government is going to control what we eat? I'm pretty sure the government can't stop me from going to a local farmer's market to get actual food to cook myself.
If they're going to be paying for your health insurance, they're going to be setting health policies, including those regarding your diet.
I can't, in good conscience, let you keep staring at the headlights without at least attempting a warning either. I'm scared for the saved, so stop believing before it's too late.
Do you see what it sounds like?
Completely ridiculous in your case, because if there's no God, the worst case scenario is that I live by a few unnecessary rules and restrictions; and when I die, nothing happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager). Not seeing any headlights there. Perhaps you could clarify what danger I'm in?
It would be in our best interest to clean up the environment even if global warming isn't happening.
I agree; the environment shouldn't be trashed.
-
Completely ridiculous in your case, because if there's no God, the worst case scenario is that I live by a few unnecessary rules and restrictions; and when I die, nothing happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager). Not seeing any headlights there. Perhaps you could clarify what danger I'm in?
You're in danger of not doing what's morally right. The absence of an afterlife does not designate the absence of danger.
I don't even need to explain the fallacies of Pascal's Wager.
-
Moral right and wrongs can't exist without a Moral Standard; where are you getting yours?
-
A naturalistic explanation for the origin of morals. Evolution, basically.
-
If they're going to be paying for your health insurance, they're going to be setting health policies, including those regarding your diet.
I don't have any health insurance. I don't even go to a doctor. What are you talking about?
Also, here we go again with argument #82372 against the Golden Rule./me sigh
-
I don't have any health insurance. I don't even go to a doctor. What are you talking about?
And now you're either going to have to buy health insurance or pay an extra tax for not doing so.
-
that's why I find it so ironic that the military seems to be the only area of government that's getting budget cuts.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesmokehammer.com%2Fimages%2Fbush_head2.jpg&hash=c9a7dd92bbe0dc07bbb8a1876225f50f)
-
Land of the free, and land of the great it is no more.
-
lol the government can't do anything right we need less of it guys
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F590Ev.png&hash=ee8600fc0b320e7208381f0d1b505116)
-
And now you're either going to have to buy health insurance or pay an extra tax for not doing so.
This is false. Anything that says otherwise is mere conjecture.
-
lol the government can't do anything right we need less of it guys
[pic]
Whether the government can do anything right is irrelevant. They shouldn't be doing any of that.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg709.imageshack.us%2Fimg709%2F8739%2Fmonkeysmilej.jpg&hash=606b427b5da07f5fe7dd02c629a1a55a)
-
Whether the government can do anything right is irrelevant. They shouldn't be doing any of that.
Why?
-
High taxes for the rich, lower taxes for the poor. Just saying.
-
That's certainly a good thing.
-
Why?
Because everyone is meant to provide for himself and his family - and the poor, if he makes such a choice - and to not be forced by those in power to provide for everyone else, too.
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;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I don't see anything in there about health care, schools, environmental protection, or other governmental institutions mentioned in that /b/ post, except the postal service and police force.
-
Land of the free, and land of the great it is no more.
If you truly think that because of national health care, then the USA has not been the land of the free or great since long, long before you were born. Social Security, Medicare, highways, national parks, all that stuff: same deal. Citizens paying for public projects that not everyone uses. Don't like it? Move to Somalia, where the government doesn't control your health care or nutrition.
And I think Turtlekid's problem is he hasn't seen the real world. Yes, it's easy for the gov'mint to seem evil when it looks like all they do is take your money and blow it on things you don't support or care about, but without the government countering the actions of private companies we would be ****ED. Here's the key: the government's goal is not money. They need tons of money, but its not the be-all end-all point. For almost all private companies, that is the only goal: money. And it causes them to act very, very evil. In a pure capitalism or anarchist system, nature's beauty would have been utterly destroyed by now, we would not have safe food or water, and 99% of the population would be uneducated serfs slaving their entire lives away to serve an elite 1% of CEO-type people. It still trends that way somewhat (as we are still capitalists) but the government is extremely useful in preventing this kind of monopolistic domination of every area of life by businesses.
So get a non-government job some time, and you may begin to appreciate the government's actions, even if they weren't mandated by an ancient document (you sure do seem to love those).
-
I do believe I've found my WTD Award nominee for this year.
-
You can't vote for yourself, Turtlekid.
-
Rebuttal of the Gods.
I don't care if this GIF is overused or whatever, but this brilliant post deserves the recognition.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi573.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss175%2Fprogressinacan%2FSlowClap.gif&hash=59f07e8117b9aaeabd81ea108db346bb)
-
Save for that unwarranted Biblical shot at the end, I find myself almost kind of slightly agreeing with LD for once. Without government intervention, this would essentially become America's flag:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ehow.com%2Fimages%2Fa04%2Fj2%2Fel%2Fwalmart-accept-internet-coupon-800X800.jpg&hash=b4346f123a0590d5751e3631e63dcb03)
Back to the issue immediately at-hand, there's a reason why Tommy Douglas, the founder of Canada's modern health care system, was voted the Greatest Canadian in history by a nation-wide poll. His contribution revolutionized the nation for the undisputed better. The government providing a completely-accessible health care system is just as important a function as supporting law enforcement and the judicial system.
-
Except, in America's case, the document at the core of its system of laws does not allow for it.
-
Save for that unwarranted Biblical shot at the end
Why is faith worthy of respect? Seriously, he called the Bible ancient. Is he wrong?
-
No, but there was no need to refer to it as a point to discredit TK's stance.
-
I meant the US Constitution, not the Bible.
-
Because everyone is meant to provide for himself and his family
So what about single-parent families headed by women? I guess everyone equals men only.
-
Whoa, easy there.
The rules of grammar dictate that when gender is unknown, it's correct to use the masculine pronoun, that's all. Or at least, that's what my grammar textbooks always say.
-
Turtlekid is in the right. Just as constantly writing "I think" or "in my opinion" is weak writing, so is writing horrific stuff like "provide for himself or herself and his or her family". (Note that "provide for their family" is incorrect because it's plural while the subject "everyone" is singular.)
Good grammar, Turtlekid!
-
I'm all for they/their slowly morphing into acceptable gender neutral pronouns.
-
Say Turtle, ever take an Economics or Sociology class?
-
And now you're either going to have to buy health insurance or pay an extra tax for not doing so.
This is false. Anything that says otherwise is mere conjecture.
Wrong. (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf) The mandate is in.
The commerce power has certainly become capacious. Even lawyers whose last exposure to Constitutional Law was in law school are vaguely familiar with the ways in which the commerce power had been used to reach activity bearing, at best, a weak family resemblance to the transaction of business across state lines. Most recently, in Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that Congress can prohibit persons from growing and consuming marijuana at home because of its posited impact on interstate traffic in weed.
Still, the individual mandate may be different. Professor Barnett writes that "[w]hile Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company." It's one thing to be subject to regulation because you are providing for yourself what you would otherwise buy in an interstate market. It's quite another thing to argue that, because your refusal to consume a product may affect interstate commerce (if the young and healthy do not insure, the old and sick will have to pay more), you can be made to buy it.
Some scholars and lawyers prefer to emphasize Congress' authority to tax and spend to promote the general welfare. Jack Balkin, for example, thinks that this makes the case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate "easy." For Professor Balkin, there is no need to construct Rube Goldberg-like scenarios of commercial impact. "The government can make you pay taxes," he says. Because the failure to insure will result in a tax (as opposed, I guess, to a stint in Leavenworth), there is nothing to see here.
Perhaps not. There is certainly case law that, while not mandating that conclusion, provides some substantial support. But it ought not to be that easy. The power to tax is, the power to destroy. While taxes may have a regulatory purpose, there should be some limitation on the ability of Congress to accomplish by taxation is there truly no limitation on Congress' ability to coerce through taxation what it cannot do through regulation? Should Congress really be able to take, as is the case here, up to two percent of a person's income because she has failed to do what Congress cannot compel her to do? Does a fine become permissible as long as it is connected through the Internal Revenue Service?
...
Were I to wager on the question (which may turn out to be an exercise in reading the mind of Anthony Kennedy), I would expect the Court to uphold the individual mandate. But the day that it does will be a tragic one for the Republic.
The reason will not be the survival of ObamaCare. It is, I think, a poorly conceived proposal that will do more harm than good. As written, it seems likely to fail and, if not abandoned, may well lead to a single payer system. But we have survived worse.
It will be tragic because the notion of a Congress limited by the scope of its enumerated powers will have finally suffered the coup de grace. The Bill of Rights (once famously - and now ironically - thought to be unnecessary given the structural limits on the power of the national government) will become the only limitation on the power of Congress. If Congress can require you to buy health insurance because of the ways in which your uncovered existence effects interstate commerce or because it can tax you in an effort to force you to do anything old thing it wants you to, it is hard to see what - save some other constitutional restriction - it cannot require you to do - or prohibit you from doing.
(Source (http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2010/03/the-end-of-the.php))
Both liberals and conservatives far too often believe that if something is a good thing to do (in their opinion), it should be done by the government, without the slightest regard to whether the government has the constitutional authority to do it.
Whether or not you believe on ethical grounds that the government should have this power, the fact is that they don't. If you want to give them that power, you should seriously consider the implications of it. If the government is allowed to do something that they do not have the constitutional power to do and which the majority of the public opposes, simply because they think it's a good idea, especially something this big, you are giving them license to do whatever the hell they want. And keep in mind that that absolute power will still be available to Washington when Congress and the White House are controlled by Republicans in 2013.