Curse

Eskimoz · Oct 17, 2009, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

In general, the bills moving through Congress would require most Americans to buy insurance, provide federal subsidies to help lower-income people afford coverage and help small businesses defray the cost of extending coverage to their workers.

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions and limit their ability to charge higher premiums based on age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33354780...th_care_reform

The "bills" in a nutshell.

There are 5 proposed health care bills total.

Kyosuke · Oct 19, 2009, 06:10 AM // 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Your other arguments aside, many of which I can agree with, I have to address the above statement. Which is just wow, I have to assume that your cry for us to educate ourselves can be directed back at you. You think our health care system successful? From who's perspective? The record number of hospitals closing? Nearly 1/2 of hospitals operate in the Red. The hundreds of doctors leaving the system to take up other careers? A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 is predicted, with 1/2 of doctors stating they would leave medicine if they had an alternative. The overcrowding of ER's? 80% of teaching hospitals and urban hospitals and 90% of level I trauma centers were either at or above the operating capacity of their ED. The nurse to patient ratio which is higher then ever? Many states are now trying to pass ratio laws as units are chronically understaffed and nurses have too many patients to care for on each shift.

If you mean the insurance companies are successful, you may be right. But that's doesn't mean our health care system falls into that category.

First and foremost would be to take a look at the reason why hospitals are closing and why the statistics are what they are. If you look at the states where this seems to be happening, I would suggest tracing back the legislation in those states over the course of the past 10-15 years. Pay close attention to the added requirements for not only the "big bad" insurance companies people like to pick on so much, but also the restrictions and rules placed upon doctors. Their biggest enemy is the same as an insurance company, the government. When a doctor is literally dictated to how he or she must perform a procedure and then dictated by medicaid or medicare how much money in compensation he/she will get, it makes a difference. You see things going like $20 for a single ibuprofen because the hospitals have to make up their costs somehow. In some states doctors can escape and stop taking the government forms of insurance, in others they cannot. Ask any doctor in a balanced state which he'd rather take, private or government and he'll sure as the sky is blue tell you private, because he can make his bottom line atleast plus some.

Some states and their laws have done more damage to healthcare than even the federal government has done. When you place excess rules and regulation on the parties involved, of course the service/commodity is going to become scarce because they can't meet those new demands.

Newer doctors have a hard time making money. Most people think it's easy as hell to become a doctor and then make the big bucks. That's truly only the lucky ones. Most make a steady median income and most can't even live off of that when trying to pay back $250,000 in student loans to get to where they are.

Our health care system's quality is great. It's the best in the world by far. It's why you see people coming here from all over the world for treatment, but the fact of the matter is, it won't stay that way if the government interferes more. It's not about "ratios." - It's about ratio standards can never bet met so long as theirs no incentive to be in the field at the moment unless you know for sure you're not going to be restricted in how you practice and you know you're going to be compensated appropriately.

Insurance companies have rules and guidelines they must follow. They do indeed make money, but premiums aren't how they necessarily do that. Most are expected to "invest" that money and keep it safe and ever-growing so they can afford to pay for people's treatments who need it. Private companies rates coincide with how poorly medicare and medicaid are paying. The less the government plans pay, the more the private plans are expected to pay. It's the way it is and the way it has been for quite awhile now, and you add more of a burden of laws on top of that as well, it's why every 6 months your premium increases by a couple of dollars.

You want a better system, honestly? Take government out of health care. As I've said time and time again, don't let a bunch of lawyers dictate to us how our health care should be treated. The last time I checked, the only thing they were good at is trying to figure out how to screw the next guy over and make their own wallets bigger. Generalizing like they do on that last point, to make a point.

Winterclaw · Oct 19, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24

One of the five healthcare bills.

It weighs in at 1,502 pages. Now who's going to read all of that and the other 4 bills?

Shursh · Oct 20, 2009, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

One of the five healthcare bills.

It weighs in at 1,502 pages. Now who's going to read all of that and the other 4 bills?

Do you really want us to answer that question?

Honestly, if you took out all the legalese it would probably condense to a whopping 85 pages and, god forbid, stand a greater chance of being read by the general public.

Cliff Notes anyone?

Snow Bunny · Oct 21, 2009, 08:56 PM // 20:56

"WELL IN ENGLAND WE HAVE THIS AMAZING HEALTHCARE AND OH MAN DO WE LOVE IT"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wor...-1225789138798

Winterclaw · Oct 22, 2009, 07:03 PM // 19:03

Makes you wonder if Obama's Care package is passed if they'll make everyone who is overweight get one of those stomach reduction surgeries or ban them from eating any food that isn't on a special government list. Maybe they'll make men and women on Obama's Care get vasectomies and tube-tying surgeries to keep them from breeding (his science czar is on record for supporting sterilizing people). Maybe they'll make emasculation mandatory for all males on Obama's Care who have certain STDs to stop their spread and lower the future number of cases.

Now, did I sound like a total nut-case with what I said above?

You betcha.

However, the pay czar just ordered people to take a 25-90% paycut. As crazy as it sounds, when you've got people in the white house who love the ideology of chairman Mao, the murder of at least 40 million people, as one of the two people she turns to the most, at this point you can't rule anything out.

I would like to be able to rule fascism and tyranny out as a possibility for America, really I would. However the trends I've been seeing out of the white house, I don't see anything pointing in a positive direction. I mean the bailouts were used as a vehicle to take over some businesses, is this healthcare package going to be a vehicle to take over the lives of some Americans?

I'm from Florida. During the primaries Obama (and Clinton) did something very telling. You see the people and repersentatives of Florida and Michigan decided they wanted to have their primary elections earlier than usual. The people, even if they didn't directly decide on the date, did turn out and vote in the primaries as good citizens should. However Obama and Clinton, instead of letting the people vote, originally kowtowed to the DNC and supported them not allowing the votes of two states to be counted. Clinton only changed when she won the two states. Obama for months opposed those votes being counted until he had enough superdeligates to win, regardless of what the people want.

That is not what someone who gives a rat's butt about America or American values would do. Telling someone, I don't like you and I don't like you democratically doing something I don't like, so I'm just going to throw out your vote and your say is pure tyranny and fascism. Yes it was only a primary but it was a telling indication to the character of the man... and the character of his most ardent supporters who supported him even though he opposed democracy because he didn't win that democratic vote.

The fact that my state, despite knowing that, voted for this dictator in making brings a lot of shame to me as a Floridian. The fact that a majority of Americans voted for this fascist is outrageous. This is not America was founded on. This is not what generations of Americans fought and died for.

My opinion of Obama is of someone who doesn't give a crap for American traditions, values, or the constitution and that the things that he does are a means to an end that is in contrary to what is truly American in nature. He sounds charming, but I think he really is a bad guy; he's a bad book with a good cover. Obama doesn't care about life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. I feel that obamascare is a road to a proverbial hell paved in good intentions.

Consider:
1. Obama doesn't care about life because prohibiting funding to abortions was refused to be a part of this bill.
2. Obama doesn't care about liberty because he's taking away because he's trying to take away people's ability to choose whether or not they have healthcare via punitive taxes. He also wants single payer, meaning you the person receiving health insurance will only be allowed the government option, there will be no private option.
3. Obama doesn't care about property because he's going to tax us all for this and if there is a government option, he will set it up in order to destroy an entire industry.
4. Obama doesn't care about pursuit of happiness because he is not giving people the ability to make their own choices and pursue happiness according to their own needs; he's prohibiting people from saying "I'm healthy right and I'd get more happiness if I weren't wasting money every year on health insurance."

Sure there are flaws in the system and yes people will make the wrong choice from time to time, but that's what being free is about. That's what being an American is all about. If you feel sorry for the poor, give to charity if you can afford it, but please don't support fascism, even one that starts out with a smiley face.

Hiotoko · Oct 26, 2009, 12:18 AM // 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Sure there are flaws in the system and yes people will make the wrong choice from time to time, but that's what being free is about. That's what being an American is all about. If you feel sorry for the poor, give to charity if you can afford it, but please don't support fascism, even one that starts out with a smiley face.

I honestly don't know how you can say the current health care system is fine. I suppose it's worth those 45,000 deaths per year for "freedom", right? While you may or may not agree with the bills being presented it's purely ignorant to state that the system is doing great and needs no reform. Not sure how familiar you are with the health insurance system but it's not at all about being free. Socialism? Debatable. Fascism? Ha. Of course the bias in your post is far too obvious, it reads like a troll. Sadly I doubt anything truly positive will come out of this as this country is far to polarized one way or the other to get anything done.

mrmango · Oct 28, 2009, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

I'm from Florida. During the primaries Obama (and Clinton) did something very telling. You see the people and repersentatives of Florida and Michigan decided they wanted to have their primary elections earlier than usual. The people, even if they didn't directly decide on the date, did turn out and vote in the primaries as good citizens should. However Obama and Clinton, instead of letting the people vote, originally kowtowed to the DNC and supported them not allowing the votes of two states to be counted. Clinton only changed when she won the two states. Obama for months opposed those votes being counted until he had enough superdeligates to win, regardless of what the people want.

That is not what someone who gives a rat's butt about America or American values would do. Telling someone, I don't like you and I don't like you democratically doing something I don't like, so I'm just going to throw out your vote and your say is pure tyranny and fascism. Yes it was only a primary but it was a telling indication to the character of the man... and the character of his most ardent supporters who supported him even though he opposed democracy because he didn't win that democratic vote.

The fact that my state, despite knowing that, voted for this dictator in making brings a lot of shame to me as a Floridian. The fact that a majority of Americans voted for this fascist is outrageous. This is not America was founded on. This is not what generations of Americans fought and died for.

My opinion of Obama is of someone who doesn't give a crap for American traditions, values, or the constitution and that the things that he does are a means to an end that is in contrary to what is truly American in nature. He sounds charming, but I think he really is a bad guy; he's a bad book with a good cover. Obama doesn't care about life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. I feel that obamascare is a road to a proverbial hell paved in good intentions.

Consider:
1. Obama doesn't care about life because prohibiting funding to abortions was refused to be a part of this bill.
2. Obama doesn't care about liberty because he's taking away because he's trying to take away people's ability to choose whether or not they have healthcare via punitive taxes. He also wants single payer, meaning you the person receiving health insurance will only be allowed the government option, there will be no private option.
3. Obama doesn't care about property because he's going to tax us all for this and if there is a government option, he will set it up in order to destroy an entire industry.
4. Obama doesn't care about pursuit of happiness because he is not giving people the ability to make their own choices and pursue happiness according to their own needs; he's prohibiting people from saying "I'm healthy right and I'd get more happiness if I weren't wasting money every year on health insurance."

Sure there are flaws in the system and yes people will make the wrong choice from time to time, but that's what being free is about. That's what being an American is all about. If you feel sorry for the poor, give to charity if you can afford it, but please don't support fascism, even one that starts out with a smiley face.

Thanks for being really explicit with your argument Winterclaw. This makes it easier to sift through and respond. The stuff I quoted is what I am going to respond to, in order.

Florida and Michigan violated rules which had consequences. There is no reason to waive those consequences willy nilly. I guess the rule could limit political freedom, possibly but not definitely, so we might want to change that now. You can then get rid of those consequences.

He won a democratic vote. He's not a fascist.
(Wiki: Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is an extreme right-wing ideology[1] and comprises of radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideologies[2][3][4][5] and a corporatist economic ideology.
a) Obama isn't right wing enough.
b) he is not radical, but this is hard to prove as it's a loaded word.
c) He isn't authoritarian, we still have our freedoms and he isn't doing anything to get rid of them. We have the option (and will have the option) to buy healthcare from anywhere we want.
c) He isn't extremely nationalist. He's definitely less than Bush/Reagan/neo-cons are.
d) He isn't exactly a corporatist..)

I don't see how you say that Obama is against the abstract notion of freedom. He isn't trying to enslave people or send them to jail or take their property..

Traditions aren't always good. EX: It was against tradition for interracial marriage to be legal/acceptable. American traditions therefore are a moot point. American values are also ambiguous, try to define those as clearly as the rest of your post, please. He upholds the Constitution (except for the Guantanamo bit, him going back on his promise goes against 5th,6th,7th,8th ammendments).

Objections to consideration points:
1. It isn't conclusive that life starts at conception. Prohibiting abortions from the national system would keep it from covering life saving abortions for cases of harm to the mother, rape, or incest.
2. There's a bill that will allow states to opt out, is that good for you if you have your state opt out? Why they would... is another story.. The gov't healthcare is supposed to be a good option anyway.
How do you find that there will be no private option. The single payer options doesn't outlaw private insurance or disallow it.
3. It isn't meant to destroy an industry. It's meant to hold it accountable; they can still survive if they follow the rules set in place. Also, this doesn't take away property.
4. He in no way takes away people's choice making ability. Nobody is healthy enough to never warrant medical care in some way.

Master Fuhon · Oct 29, 2009, 12:39 AM // 00:39

Look up a word involving negative qualities in a dictionary, and you'll find a more accurate definition of denial instead. This is just a small hint, but wikipedia frequently gives the 'honest' representation a definition would display of itself. A definition people are trying to kill won't tell you what it is so you can squash it easier. Not that most people consider it, but there’s always something preservable in a bad definition. Just like when we reform health care, we have to retain some parts. The truth in a lie is in the space where the lie isn't.

A form of fascist will always be defining fascism. They are an animal naturally found around power flow, and wikipedia controls information. I would not witch hunt for fascists, because I doubt most people can accurately distinguish the specific animals that are found around power sources. Wikipedia says it in a different way with an assume good faith clause. Due to ignorance, any witch-hunter would likely be entering into a war with all of these animals, because all of them share a common part. They also share power that many people don't have. World leaders are often (if not always) on the same evolutionary chain as the fascist.

Just reading the talk page on fascism should give an indication that the information is contested and held by authority (of someone’s logic, makes developing logic a crucial skill, but also there is an authority of a quantity of people or money). The description of left/right doesn't belong in it's current state, because it holds meaning to someone involved in specific politics. It has no objective meaning because it can't mention what we are left or right of. It can't mention that because the entity that we think we are left/right of does not have a fixed definition. When our government moves left, people on the left are now centrist; and people who were centrist are now right. By default, we can make it appear that fascists are always coming from the right by making more radical leaps in the direction the fascist came from.

Example:
Left -- G.W.Bush -- Center -- Right
Bush calls himself 'born again', thus switching sides instantly and permanently.
Left -- Center -- G.W.Bush -- Right
This should be called 'self-labeling through affiliation'. There's a distinct difference between this and history's old method: 1) I am telling other people how to interpret me. 2) The interpretation of me is done by who I affiliate with, rather than how I behave.

What wikipedia really shows is that fascists have allied against those coming from the right, because there was a consensus to scapegoat that side as being the problem (mandated by vote). However, as long as people know that fascists are disguising the most recognizable form of fascism they know enough. Fascism can't be confronted head on anyway, because that's part of a fascist way of doing things.

A11Eur0 · Oct 29, 2009, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hiotoko

I honestly don't know how you can say the current health care system is fine. I suppose it's worth those 45,000 deaths per year for "freedom", right? While you may or may not agree with the bills being presented it's purely ignorant to state that the system is doing great and needs no reform. Not sure how familiar you are with the health insurance system but it's not at all about being free. Socialism? Debatable. Fascism? Ha. Of course the bias in your post is far too obvious, it reads like a troll. Sadly I doubt anything truly positive will come out of this as this country is far to polarized one way or the other to get anything done.

Right here is someone who takes an entire post, boils it down to the concluding paragraph to judge, and does it wrong.

he never said the current system is fine. He said it would be WORSE if the government took over. And it will.

And the bias in your post coupled with your apparent inability to argue more than a few lines using simple party-line buzzwords and scripted, rehearsed answers we hear from every Democrat out there reeks more of troll than the well thought-out, rational, intelligent post you decided to ignore 80% of.

I also love the post as long as Winterclaw's doing nothing but defining the word Fascism and making excuses why it doesn't fit like a tailored glove. Sorry, but half of those reasons can be argued:

Quote:

He won a democratic vote. He's not a fascist.
(Wiki: Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is an extreme right-wing ideology[1] and comprises of radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideologies[2][3][4][5] and a corporatist economic ideology.
a) Obama isn't right wing enough.
b) he is not radical, but this is hard to prove as it's a loaded word.
c) He isn't authoritarian, we still have our freedoms and he isn't doing anything to get rid of them. We have the option (and will have the option) to buy healthcare from anywhere we want.
c) He isn't extremely nationalist. He's definitely less than Bush/Reagan/neo-cons are.
d) He isn't exactly a corporatist..)

a: fascism can span party lines. You don't need to be a conservative to want to rule the country alone.
b: yes...yes he is a radical. It's painfully clear to anyone who doesn't buy his rhetoric. he wants to "change the United States". That's radical, by the very definition of the word: "revolutionary: markedly new or introducing radical change; "a revolutionary discovery"; "radical political views" "
c: he's not directly stripping rights, but he's putting plans into play where the American sheeple will willingly give their rights away. There will be a government option, private option, or fines for choosing neither. This government option will undoubtedly be cheaper than the cheapest private option out there, and will superficially promise universal care. This will put the private sector out of business except for the super-rich, and will force the poor into the universal government option. this universal care will prove to be a hoax, as any procedures for elderly, terminally ill or non-valuable citizens will be refused. mark my words.
your second c: Nationalism isn't a requirement for fascism, that's why it's further down the list. It's just something that most rabid fascist politicians have been in the past.
d: bottom of the list "requirement" so it fits with the above...but I'll have to break it to you: Yes he is, to his very core.

corporatism (plural corporatisms)

1. Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state.

What else would you call ACORN?

"He in no way takes away people's choice making ability. Nobody is healthy enough to never warrant medical care in some way. "

This is flat out untrue. "In No Way Takes Away Peoples' Choice-Making Ability". In no way? How about my choice to not get health insurance? he's taking that away by forcing me to choose an option or get fined. if I don't pay the fine, I go to jail and incur a larger fine. That's not removal of choice?

If someone is healthy enough to be able to save money and pay cash for a medical procedure for an injury, and for the necessary painkillers and antibiotics, but otherwise does not get seriously ill, they can and should be able to make that choice, rather than pouring that money instead into a monthly bill for insurance that very well may not accept his claim. yeah, that's "in no way taking choice-making ability". Sure.

Snow Bunny · Oct 29, 2009, 04:22 AM // 04:22

Our economic freedom index went down because of Obama.

QQ

Shursh · Oct 29, 2009, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

economic freedom index

I LOLed.

What the hell is that??

Snow Bunny · Oct 29, 2009, 08:14 PM // 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shursh

I LOLed.

What the hell is that??

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

A11Eur0 · Oct 29, 2009, 10:11 PM // 22:11

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...closed-public/

Closed committee rooms to republicans, closed the unveiling of a public health care bill with a public option, on public property, to the public.

Do you people honestly think this is for the good of the United States Public if they feel the need to lock anyone out who has any questions about it? Where's the DEMOCRACY in this?

"Democrats repeatedly touted the openness of the development of their health care bill, which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called "the most deliberative, transparent and open process" he had seen in his career on Capitol Hill."

yeah...ok.

mrmango · Oct 30, 2009, 06:17 AM // 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

a: fascism can span party lines. You don't need to be a conservative to want to rule the country alone.
b: yes...yes he is a radical. It's painfully clear to anyone who doesn't buy his rhetoric. he wants to "change the United States". That's radical, by the very definition of the word: "revolutionary: markedly new or introducing radical change; "a revolutionary discovery"; "radical political views" "
c: he's not directly stripping rights, but he's putting plans into play where the American sheeple will willingly give their rights away. There will be a government option, private option, or fines for choosing neither. This government option will undoubtedly be cheaper than the cheapest private option out there, and will superficially promise universal care. This will put the private sector out of business except for the super-rich, and will force the poor into the universal government option. this universal care will prove to be a hoax, as any procedures for elderly, terminally ill or non-valuable citizens will be refused. mark my words.
your second c: Nationalism isn't a requirement for fascism, that's why it's further down the list. It's just something that most rabid fascist politicians have been in the past.
d: bottom of the list "requirement" so it fits with the above...but I'll have to break it to you: Yes he is, to his very core.

corporatism (plural corporatisms)

1. Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state.

What else would you call ACORN?

"He in no way takes away people's choice making ability. Nobody is healthy enough to never warrant medical care in some way. "

This is flat out untrue. "In No Way Takes Away Peoples' Choice-Making Ability". In no way? How about my choice to not get health insurance? he's taking that away by forcing me to choose an option or get fined. if I don't pay the fine, I go to jail and incur a larger fine. That's not removal of choice?

If someone is healthy enough to be able to save money and pay cash for a medical procedure for an injury, and for the necessary painkillers and antibiotics, but otherwise does not get seriously ill, they can and should be able to make that choice, rather than pouring that money instead into a monthly bill for insurance that very well may not accept his claim. yeah, that's "in no way taking choice-making ability". Sure.

Thanks for your response. I messed up with the two Cs there, haha.

A- True, you are right that it could be a liberal. But those are called totalitarians of a different flavor, like communism under Stalin. That is NOT fascist. They are both not good forms of government (at least without an ideal benevolent leader.. but I doubt politicians of our era can become that with absolute power at their doorstep..), but they are DIFFERENT. FASCISM is a buzzword, it's not being used correctly.
I also don't think it's good for Obama to get total control of everything, but he is not after that and isn't going to get it through anything he is passing now nor will later. Congress won't f***ing let him, even if he changes courses and becomes a totalitarian. He isn't one now. I'll describe why later through the rest of this post.
B- Fine, I'll grant it's radical to want change. But then it's radical to want ANY change at all. And ANY change is not necessarily bad. Therefore anything radical is not necessarily bad.
I propose, as you can infer, that Obama isn't a bad radical, because his change isn't bad. He wants to help people..change the systems so they let poor people have a better chance at life. I know you don't like "that slime" in the gene pool, but I think most Americans are caring and moral enough, deep down, to want to help people.
C- You have a point. Lots of sheeple accepted the Patriot Act under bush. But they became slightly smarter to elect Obama over McCain in 2008, so they might be able to see through propaganda..
If the government option is super cheap, it is a good thing. Yay for not killing our budget, right
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT IS GOING TO FAIL. Your assumption that it will is nonsense and without backing. If our option is cheap, then it is just market economics to let the less competitive (read: lousy at giving a good product) companies fail.
Second C- Actually, per definition it is. Part of why I said, above, that Obama is not a fascist. If he becomes totalitarian he'd be on the lines of communism, not fascism. But I bet he won't be.

D- I read that definition, but I thought corporate groups (as described in the wikipedia def) were non-governmental. But I guess you're right, it can include government. Fine, but then all non-anarchist politicians are corporatists..
@Acorn comment.. Acorn has some bad employees that did stupid stuff and got caught for it (good for them getting caught, imo), but the organization as a whole isn't doing bad shit like that.

Health insurance --> medical care. I said nobody can warrant never getting medical care. To be forced to get medical care isn't bad, if you ask me.. It might not give you the freedom to die... but that's a moral philosophy issue, different thread.
Also, the companies that don't satisfy claims are the ones we have now. UHC will stop that if it isn't bogged down by conservative propaganda. Another post to follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

Wall Street Journal. Hi Rupert Murdoch. Hello, his views.
Anywho, those categories we went down in;
Business Freedom - Freedom for businesses to exploit
Fiscal Freedom - Freedom for banking industry to do stupid stuff that makes them ask for bailouts.
Government Size - This is directly bad how? Libertarian non sequitur.
Freedom from Corruption - This isn't Obama, it's corporate lobbyists (banking, auto, the usual stuff conservative congressman gobble up for donations) that do it.
Labor Freedom - This is our highest thing, at 95.1/100. It dropped, but the site doesn't really say why. I don't know how Obama affected this anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...closed-public/

Closed committee rooms to republicans, closed the unveiling of a public health care bill with a public option, on public property, to the public.

Do you people honestly think this is for the good of the United States Public if they feel the need to lock anyone out who has any questions about it? Where's the DEMOCRACY in this?

"Democrats repeatedly touted the openness of the development of their health care bill, which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called "the most deliberative, transparent and open process" he had seen in his career on Capitol Hill."

yeah...ok.

I agree, it's stupid that they made it closed. It's bad for the democrats, I definitely agree. I just want to say we aren't polar opposites.
The article doesn't give a reason, not even speculation. Meh.

It's not necessarily a democratic right to be able to see a bill before anybody else, though. It's just socially rude, I think, for Pelosi to blockade non-Dems from it.

Also, America is not a Democracy. It's a republic. Look it up, buddy.

Go Go Gadget Edit Button.

Shursh · Oct 30, 2009, 01:26 PM // 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

http://www.heritage.org/Index/

Quote:

For a country considering economic reforms, those components on which it scores the lowest are likely to be the most important in terms of providing significant opportunities for improving economic performance.

So our economic freedom index went down because we are considering economic/healthcare reforms?

I'm surprised you even refer to this site Snowbunny. "Freedom from Corruption"...ascertained from the CPI, which isn't even associated with three countries in the list.

Not to get terribly off-topic from healthcare, but is this index widely used??

A11Eur0 · Oct 30, 2009, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

A- True, you are right that it could be a liberal. But those are called totalitarians of a different flavor, like communism under Stalin. That is NOT fascist. They are both not good forms of government (at least without an ideal benevolent leader.. but I doubt politicians of our era can become that with absolute power at their doorstep..), but they are DIFFERENT. FASCISM is a buzzword, it's not being used correctly.
I also don't think it's good for Obama to get total control of everything, but he is not after that and isn't going to get it through anything he is passing now nor will later. Congress won't f***ing let him, even if he changes courses and becomes a totalitarian. He isn't one now. I'll describe why later through the rest of this post.
B- Fine, I'll grant it's radical to want change. But then it's radical to want ANY change at all. And ANY change is not necessarily bad. Therefore anything radical is not necessarily bad.
I propose, as you can infer, that Obama isn't a bad radical, because his change isn't bad. He wants to help people..change the systems so they let poor people have a better chance at life. I know you don't like "that slime" in the gene pool, but I think most Americans are caring and moral enough, deep down, to want to help people.
C- You have a point. Lots of sheeple accepted the Patriot Act under bush. But they became slightly smarter to elect Obama over McCain in 2008, so they might be able to see through propaganda..
If the government option is super cheap, it is a good thing. Yay for not killing our budget, right
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT IS GOING TO FAIL. Your assumption that it will is nonsense and without backing. If our option is cheap, then it is just market economics to let the less competitive (read: lousy at giving a good product) companies fail.
Second C- Actually, per definition it is. Part of why I said, above, that Obama is not a fascist. If he becomes totalitarian he'd be on the lines of communism, not fascism. But I bet he won't be.
D- I read that definition, but I thought corporate groups (as described in the wikipedia def) were non-governmental. But I guess you're right, it can include government. Fine, but then all non-anarchist politicians are corporatists..
@Acorn comment.. Acorn has some bad employees that did stupid stuff and got caught for it (good for them getting caught, imo), but the organization as a whole isn't doing bad shit like that.

Health insurance --> medical care. I said nobody can warrant never getting medical care. To be forced to get medical care isn't bad, if you ask me.. It might not give you the freedom to die... but that's a moral philosophy issue, different thread.
Also, the companies that don't satisfy claims are the ones we have now. UHC will stop that if it isn't bogged down by conservative propaganda. Another post to follow.

Sure, I'll keep playing.

A: Fascists are people who want total control. "Communism" by definition is control by the people. Lenin and Stalin preached "communism", Mao Tse Tung preached "Communism"...but practiced fascism. Fascism = Totalitarianism = Dictatorship. By your definition, Fascism is government control over all business, and through that the people.

B: We come to the point that what one says is not necessarily what one believes or will practice. He might say that he wants to help people, but his actions say otherwise. He wants to help HIS people, at the expense of everyone else. And who are his people? ACORN. Not poor people. NOT "oppressed" african Americans. He, like every other politician in recent history, wants to help who gives him the most support. Deep down, I don't give a shit about other people if they can't help me. Instead, I want to give people the opportunity to HELP THEMSELVES. And if they aren't willing, hell with them.

C: You turned what I said around to praise Obama and demonize the Republican party. Congratulations, you're a spin-doctoring pundit. I think they were stupid to elect Obama merely on the fact that Bush was a bad president. I think they had stars in their eyes at the prospect of a Black president, who was promising racial equality, but in practice is doing all he can to give Blacks more than whites. I think they were so sick of what Bush was doing that they'd take anything else, and the mass media outlets pandered to that feeling by taking ridiculous, unsubstantiated cheap shots at the opposing side, saying that McCain is just like Bush, he's old and gonna die, and Palin's a blithering idiot and psychopath. None of this is truth. McCain supported giving the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan the support they needed to do their jobs. Obama instead is taking OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS and using it to PAY OFF TALIBAN MEMBERS TO SWITCH SIDES!!!!!! He's doing this INSTEAD OF a: removing the soldiers altogether or b: giving them the supplies, political support and decision-making freedom necessary to keep them safe. Instead he as a non-military pacifist/apologist is making the rules more strict as to what the soldiers can and cannot do, opening them up to more dangerous guerrilla tactics used by the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents.

If the government option is super cheap, it'll put private sector out of business. What part of that don't you understand? The Government can operate at a loss to offer a cheaper option. They're pretty good at it and have decades of practice. Private sector businesses cannot, at least across the board. What's wrong with making a profit all of a sudden? What happened to living the American dream? What happened to getting paid for your efforts? All of a sudden anyone who strives to make a profit by providing a service is evil? I never said it will fail. I said it will fail to solve the problems. I'm sure it will succeed outstandingly. But adding on to that, I'm also sure that it is designed to succeed at the expense of private sector. Instead of fixing the private sector, this bill is designed to eliminate it altogether.

you can "save the budget" by not giving a public option AT ALL and making laws which will facilitate these private sector businesses to offer cheaper policies and refuse fewer cases. This will require infinitely fewer taxpayer dollars, bolster the PRIVATE ECONOMY and actually work. Doctors will get paid what they need to be paid, they will be safe from bureaucratic decision-makers who haven't been elbow-deep in a cancer patient before, etc. Unfortunately, many people think that this will be "too hard" and consider throwing money at the problem to be a better option. Oooooook.

D:No, not all non-anarchist politicians are corporatists. Read the definition again. Any politician who feels that private business should stay private is a non-corporatist. The simple definition of corporatist is someone who believes that Government should be in charge of the business sector through private firms. Ron Paul is an example of a non-anarchist who believes in laissez-faire government. It's sad how many people don't even understand that term any more, because it's no longer taught in schools. Apparently between the time I spent in High School and now, schools have made the switch to big government support. Oh, that's right...those public schools are run by the government. Gee whiz. Oh, I also noticed your attempt to spin my words.

As for ACORN: those employees represented the organization. If you think that this crap isn't rampant and widespread throughout the organization you're blind and naive. ACORN and SEIU both have shown massive numbers at town-hall meetings in an attempt to intimidate and physically harrass any opponents of Obama and his health care bill.

Oh...America is a Republic, not a Democracy. So we should elect REPUBLICANS instead of DEMOCRATS, right? Define republic, first result from google:

# democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

Go choke on your failed reasoning, sir. It's not just RUDE for Pelosi to block opponents from the "unveiling" of a public FEDERAL plan that WILL CHANGE THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS FOREVER, it's straight up dictatorial. It's FASCIST. It's not REPRESENTATIVE of the people when a significant portion of those people with whom the "supreme power lies" are not permitted to attend.

mrmango · Oct 31, 2009, 03:29 AM // 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Sure, I'll keep playing.

A: Fascists are people who want total control. "Communism" by definition is control by the people. Lenin and Stalin preached "communism", Mao Tse Tung preached "Communism"...but practiced fascism. Fascism = Totalitarianism = Dictatorship. By your definition, Fascism is government control over all business, and through that the people.

B: We come to the point that what one says is not necessarily what one believes or will practice. He might say that he wants to help people, but his actions say otherwise. He wants to help HIS people, at the expense of everyone else. And who are his people? ACORN. Not poor people. NOT "oppressed" african Americans. He, like every other politician in recent history, wants to help who gives him the most support. Deep down, I don't give a shit about other people if they can't help me. Instead, I want to give people the opportunity to HELP THEMSELVES. And if they aren't willing, hell with them.

C: You turned what I said around to praise Obama and demonize the Republican party. Congratulations, you're a spin-doctoring pundit. I think they were stupid to elect Obama merely on the fact that Bush was a bad president. I think they had stars in their eyes at the prospect of a Black president, who was promising racial equality, but in practice is doing all he can to give Blacks more than whites. I think they were so sick of what Bush was doing that they'd take anything else, and the mass media outlets pandered to that feeling by taking ridiculous, unsubstantiated cheap shots at the opposing side, saying that McCain is just like Bush, he's old and gonna die, and Palin's a blithering idiot and psychopath. None of this is truth. McCain supported giving the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan the support they needed to do their jobs. Obama instead is taking OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS and using it to PAY OFF TALIBAN MEMBERS TO SWITCH SIDES!!!!!! He's doing this INSTEAD OF a: removing the soldiers altogether or b: giving them the supplies, political support and decision-making freedom necessary to keep them safe. Instead he as a non-military pacifist/apologist is making the rules more strict as to what the soldiers can and cannot do, opening them up to more dangerous guerrilla tactics used by the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents.

If the government option is super cheap, it'll put private sector out of business. What part of that don't you understand? The Government can operate at a loss to offer a cheaper option. They're pretty good at it and have decades of practice. Private sector businesses cannot, at least across the board. What's wrong with making a profit all of a sudden? What happened to living the American dream? What happened to getting paid for your efforts? All of a sudden anyone who strives to make a profit by providing a service is evil? I never said it will fail. I said it will fail to solve the problems. I'm sure it will succeed outstandingly. But adding on to that, I'm also sure that it is designed to succeed at the expense of private sector. Instead of fixing the private sector, this bill is designed to eliminate it altogether.

you can "save the budget" by not giving a public option AT ALL and making laws which will facilitate these private sector businesses to offer cheaper policies and refuse fewer cases. This will require infinitely fewer taxpayer dollars, bolster the PRIVATE ECONOMY and actually work. Doctors will get paid what they need to be paid, they will be safe from bureaucratic decision-makers who haven't been elbow-deep in a cancer patient before, etc. Unfortunately, many people think that this will be "too hard" and consider throwing money at the problem to be a better option. Oooooook.

D:No, not all non-anarchist politicians are corporatists. Read the definition again. Any politician who feels that private business should stay private is a non-corporatist. The simple definition of corporatist is someone who believes that Government should be in charge of the business sector through private firms. Ron Paul is an example of a non-anarchist who believes in laissez-faire government. It's sad how many people don't even understand that term any more, because it's no longer taught in schools. Apparently between the time I spent in High School and now, schools have made the switch to big government support. Oh, that's right...those public schools are run by the government. Gee whiz. Oh, I also noticed your attempt to spin my words.

As for ACORN: those employees represented the organization. If you think that this crap isn't rampant and widespread throughout the organization you're blind and naive. ACORN and SEIU both have shown massive numbers at town-hall meetings in an attempt to intimidate and physically harrass any opponents of Obama and his health care bill.

Oh...America is a Republic, not a Democracy. So we should elect REPUBLICANS instead of DEMOCRATS, right? Define republic, first result from google:

# democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"

Go choke on your failed reasoning, sir. It's not just RUDE for Pelosi to block opponents from the "unveiling" of a public FEDERAL plan that WILL CHANGE THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS FOREVER, it's straight up dictatorial. It's FASCIST. It's not REPRESENTATIVE of the people when a significant portion of those people with whom the "supreme power lies" are not permitted to attend.

Your post is starting to make less sense. I'm getting somewhere and striking some nerve, aren't I? :X

A- You didn't get my post. Communism and Fascism are both totalitarian, but they are different in other ways. Obama is likelier to become Communist than Fascist, but realistically he will become neither.
B- Acorn is his people? What does that mean. It's just a political advocacy group.. Yes he is bailing out corporations and such, so I agree he is caring less about the little guy. But, if you check PolitiFact's non-partisan promise meter, he has done a few little guy-helping acts.
I think it's bad that politicians only help the people who donate to them, but I think Obama is less bad for that than others. He is helping the main street people, as said above. Also, his Healthcare reform, one of many examples, is going to allow people to help themselves. Get the big business corporations out of the business of denying life saving treatment and there's one more opportunity to stay alive by choosing better healthcare.

C- I'm sorry for going off on a tangent, I guess. I admit that Bush wasn't being spoken about prior.. but I found it relevant enough. Please, don't call me a pundit. I'm not the one spewing buzzwords like Fascist willy nilly.
You and I agree on the Wars though, I think he should take troops out as well. You make a good point and that bill you posted about is pretty weird... To be honest it might get them from fighting us for a short while, but such a waste..
But Pacifism is not wrong.

Here is where your argument derails..
If gov't method = cheaper, then it is also working more efficiently. And no, I think it will definitely work well. You have no proof, as said previous times, that it won't be able to fund itself or that it won't be able to get healthcare delivered on time, etc (you implied this in the previous post I quoted..). Just pundits spewing nonsense. If the "private" people can't compete with another party, the government, then they're doing something WRONG. Hence, it's THEIR FAULT for failing. The government option won't outlaw them, but if the influence of a GOOD GOVERNMENT OPTION is too much for the private side, then good riddance. It isn't the government's fault they fail. The private sector made their own problems; the healthcare bills include regulation, no? That will be in there to fix the privates a bit and let in a better option at the same time.

Another point of fail: Saving lives (medicine) shouldn't be profit driven. It's about something more valuable than money...

Those laws you suggest are already supposed to be part of healthcare reform..

If you refer to tort reform after that, then I totally agree! We need tort reform. This is one thing the Democratic party opposes for the lobbying lawyers can do. It's bad, and we need to stop malpractice suits from being thrown around so easily.
(You also say doctors deserve to be paid so much? Eh, it's a very intellectually demanding profession, but doctors in other countries can do well and happily and still be brilliant..Do jobs for the love of it, not for the paycheck)

D- You're right about corporatism, I misread the def. I know about Ron Paul. I think he's the best conservative thinker of our time because he has views I can only disagree with on fundamental lines that are hard to say one way or another. But that's off topic.
I know laissez-faire.. I graduated from high school this past summer, I heard the term since 9th grade, every year. It's important to know. I also disagree with it, but heh.

Also, schools are run by state governments. Have been for over 100 years... what's new about that? Federal monies always went to education for some small percentage too, we've had the Dept of Education for a while..

Where/how did I try to spin your words?

LOLWUT. I haven't heard of this Acorn thug business before. I watch for conservative punditry like this, so this is surprising. Look at townhall videos, you'll see it's the conservative sheeple who shout and get aggressive.
Show me some evidence that ACORN has a large percentage of employees like that.

You're joking, with the Republican vs Democrat comment, right? They are just names... -.-
We don't directly elect our representatives in the US. For Congress, yes. But president... Electoral College. We elect electors who 99.9% of the time vote as we intend them to on OUR November ballots, but it's not set in stone.. (Bad system, but another topic again)

Here's the finale! Punditry at its best (worst?)!
I hope it changes that many lives. It'll be for the better.

No logical reasoning with enough backing to say otherwise, at least from posts here..

As I said before, she has no legal duty to let that stuff be open to all. It's therefore not dictatorial because she didn't bend any rules.
And obviously not fascist. What the f***?
I said before that this ceremony just shows the bill off before they show it in Congress. It'll be available then. And there won't be any shady pushing it through without reading it. Oh wait, Congressmen on both sides don't read bills anymore. Heh.

Eskimoz · Nov 04, 2009, 06:44 AM // 06:44

I'll explain my hatred.

You know how the anti-health reform crowd says that passing this bill will UP the cost of health insurance?

well that's true.

They dont' tell you WHY though.

Corporations spend millions of dollars on political campaigns every year, they will support a candidate that will enable them to continue doing business as they always have.

Lets say this candidate gets elected....he serves his term, no problems, no breaks for big business....however....now it's time for reelection and his best buddy big business is more then happy to spend MOAR money on his new campaign....assuming he didn't come down on said business for their practices or some other reason.

now that you've read that I'll tell you WHY health care will cost more money.

It's because the health insurance industry will be spending a HEAPING CRAP LOAD of money to fund new political candidates so that they can control the damage done by the bill to their profits. They will charge their consumer more to make up for these "donations" and advertisements against the bill/other candidate.

In short: You are paying for propaganda.

P.s.: The public option(it's back in the bill because over HALF THE DAMN COUNTRY wants it to be on there and no one can stop that.) will only and has only ever covered 2% of the population. HERP DERP!

P.s.: If I hear the word socialism one more time I am karate kicking my grandmother in the head, will post pics.
--------------

It occurred to me that I did not explain my hatred.

I hate this thread because in the end we have no say whatsoever about anything in the bill at all.

So...all of the great/crappy ideas in this thread will amount to dogs barking at each other. No one knows what they're saying and the only people that care want them to shut up.

You all have a nice day.