Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[bytor2112]

Really? why is it that whenever they get voted in, government spending actually increases and the actual size of the federal government increases, especially its military wing. Or don't you count the military as a federal government expense? -plus they invade other countries, from Bermuda to Iraq so there isn't much freedom there.

That "small government greater freedom" bit is today just a myth imo -or maybe just a campaign slogan.

When have we had an extreme conservative in office? Bush? Nope....big spending liberal. Yes, the military counts, but necessary. The problem in DC is out of control spending and waste.....like under Bush and in hyper drive under Obama. And I am fairly certain Vietnam began with a Democrat in office and ended with a Republican in office.

[talisyn]

Something I said was not factual? Personally, I would like to do away with the winner-take-all system and split electoral votes based on percentage of votes received in each state. If there were not an electoral college we would be ruled by a few densely populated states......mob rule.

As for the issue of voter fraud...it exists and neither Party is guilt free. But the cry has become very muted since those crying loudest have seen their candidates win.

Not sure what you think that says about me.....perhaps you could elaborate? You forgot ACORN.

Sorry, I thought everyone knew about ACORN. I wasn't sure anyone else knew about voter fraud perpetrated by some on the Right.

Mob rule is democracy. Democracy means people rule, literally. You have a problem with letting the American people decide who rules them? If your side loses a presidential election you get out the vote for the next one, easy as..cake .

[talisyn]

The two cannot come together, because the two edges of liberalism and conservatism are too far apart. Extreme liberals are basically socialist in nature, and want government to run a nanny state. Extreme conservatives, seek to limit government (especially the federal government), and ensure greater freedom and opportunity to individuals.

Economically, there are pros and cons to both points. But there is no easy way to get the two together. Besides, where is the "middle"? Nancy Pelosi would claim she's in the middle, and when it comes to her San Francisco constituents, she's right.

Your being too subtle, please say what you really mean. The

nanny state

and

ensure greater freedom and opportunity to individuals.

left it unclear to me exactly where the urge to compromise lies.

[Charlyc]

When have we had an extreme conservative in office? Bush? Nope....big spending liberal. Yes, the military counts, but necessary. The problem in DC is out of control spending and waste.....like under Bush and in hyper drive under Obama. And I am fairly certain Vietnam began with a Democrat in office and ended with a Republican in office.

Then South Vietnam requested help as did Kuwait in '89. But Granada & Iraq were simply invaded, as was Panama (by the way hypocritically called 'Operation Just Cause').

You're right about Bush but he did campaigned as an evangelical, extreme conservative who was going to fix DC spending and waste. Now Obama campaigned promising to close Gitmo and end the Iraq war. Hasn't happened yet so maybe the guys you vote for don't actually run the place? maybe some 'secret combination' that the BoM talks about is already calling the shots in DC. The Fed maybe? or the military-industrial complex?? I'll have to go ask Glen Beck and get back to ya!

[Palerider]

We go to the emergency room?

You can't go to the Emergency Room, you have no insurance, you will be thrown into the streets....:D Edited October 25, 2009 by Palerider

[Elphaba]

The bolded part is what I'm having a problem with. Please find in my post where it says that anybody who disagrees with me is uninformed, lazy, and selfish, or are not qualified to vote.

It’s implied in your comments when you write things like this:

There are way too many Americans who do not vote on studied principle

So, according to you I, and those who voted as I did, voted for the wrong person because we were not principled enough to study the issues? Or is it just some Americans?

What difference does it make? If we all voted the same, how do you differentiate between those who were not principled enough to study the issues from those who were, given we all came to the same conclusion? According to you, we all voted for the wrong person.

And this:

but by the illusion of what a government can do for "me"

So if I, and those who voted as I did, weren’t so selfish we wanted the government to do something for us we couldn’t do for ourselves, we wouldn't have voted for the wrong person? Or is it just some people?

Again, how do you differentiate between the two given we all came to the same conclusion?

And this:

I really think it would do this country good to limit voters to those who can pass a political test, just like limiting those who can drive to people who can pass a driver's test.

So we voted for the wrong person because we‘re ignorant? In fact, we need to pass your test before we should be allowed to vote next time, because if we knew the answers we wouldn't have voted the way we did?

Additionally, you said the test should be the same as the citizenship test. There is nothing in that test necessary for a voter to be informed enough to determine what candidate to vote for.

I just took that test and missed two. They were both about the stripes on the American flag. Should I not be allowed to vote?

Do you see where I’m going with this? It is your criticisms of people’s characters and intellect, not their choice, that I find offensive.

I usually disagree with your political positions, but it would never occur to me to suggest you, or any other person, voted the way you did because you were not principled enough to study the issues. Nor would it ever occur to me to suggest you or anyone else were so selfish you voted the way you did so the government would do something for you you couldn’t do on your own.

The only conclusion I make is that we disagree.

In my opinion, you provided a knee-jerk reaction without understanding what I'm trying to say,

My reaction is based on your ongoing posts that insinuate those who voted differently than you would have did so because we are too gullible to see through a politician‘s rhetoric, too lazy to inform ourselves, too ignorant, and too selfish to vote for the right person.

Again, it is your criticisms of a person’s intellect and character, not the person’s choice, that I find offensive.

Elphaba

Edited October 25, 2009 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Sorry, I thought everyone knew about ACORN. I wasn't sure anyone else knew about voter fraud perpetrated by some on the Right.

Mob rule is democracy. Democracy means people rule, literally. You have a problem with letting the American people decide who rules them? If your side loses a presidential election you get out the vote for the next one, easy as..cake .

Mob rule maybe democracy....BUT, that's not what the USA is....we are a representative republic and our Founders overwhelmingly supported the idea of an electoral college. As I posted earlier, I wish it wasn't winner take all. If candidate A gets 40% and candidate B gets 60% of the votes in a state with 20 electoral votes, then candidate A would get 8 electoral votes and candidate B would get 12 electoral votes rather than candidate B walking away with all 20.

[Just_A_Guy]

So??? nothing wrong with that. Those who can pay, those who can't have a safety net to rely on...........oh, but americans don't believe in safety nets right? just swim with the sharks! ...or is it the GOP that doesn't believe........hmmmm

Your own politicians seem to think there's something wrong with that, if you've read the article. They're trying to close that particular loophole--at least for the people who are the subject of the article--and dump them back into the NHS.

[bytor2112]

Are you sure they just don't get a late night craving to conquer the Sudetenland?

Comparing conservatives to Nazi's Moksha???????

[bytor2112]

Then South Vietnam requested help as did Kuwait in '89. But Granada & Iraq were simply invaded, as was Panama (by the way hypocritically called 'Operation Just Cause').

You're right about Bush but he did campaigned as an evangelical, extreme conservative who was going to fix DC spending and waste. Now Obama campaigned promising to close Gitmo and end the Iraq war. Hasn't happened yet so maybe the guys you vote for don't actually run the place? maybe some 'secret combination' that the BoM talks about is already calling the shots in DC. The Fed maybe? or the military-industrial complex?? I'll have to go ask Glen Beck and get back to ya!

Actually the current war in Iraq is just a continuation of the first Gulf War. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate" conservative. I think now that was code for pro-life, big government, big spending liberal. Obama promised....that makes me chuckle. (sigh)

Americans have lost control. We have so forgot what made America great and have embraced the victimization rhetoric and have abdicated our freedom to the maniacs in Congress. They have the audacity to even think they represent the people.......sickening.

[Moksha]

Comparing conservatives to Nazi's Moksha???????

No, I was having fun with the original attempt to give extreme liberalism a negative spin by definition but not the same for extreme conservatism. For any extreme condition, a gentle laxative may be in order.

BTW, have you seen the cover on the new Glen Beck book?

[bytor2112]

No, I was having fun with the original attempt to give extreme liberalism a negative spin by definition but not the same for extreme conservatism. For any extreme condition, a gentle laxative may be in order.

BTW, have you seen the cover on the new Glen Beck book?

Soviet style uniform.....funny. but, I don't read Beck. I am more a follower of this line of thinking.

[Palerider]

No, I was having fun with the original attempt to give extreme liberalism a negative spin by definition but not the same for extreme conservatism. For any extreme condition, a gentle laxative may be in order.

BTW, have you seen the cover on the new Glen Beck book?

you should see my new swastika...went and bought a nice shiny one when Pelosi said that I carried one around....

[Guest]

It’s implied in your comments when you write things like this: So, according to you I, and those who voted as I did, voted for the wrong person because we were not principled enough to study the issues? Or is it just some Americans?

What difference does it make? If we all voted the same, how do you differentiate between those who were not principled enough to study the issues from those who were, given we all came to the same conclusion? According to you, we all voted for the wrong person.

And this: So if I, and those who voted as I did, weren’t so selfish we wanted the government to do something for us we couldn’t do for ourselves, we wouldn't have voted for the wrong person? Or is it just some people?

Again, how do you differentiate between the two given we all came to the same conclusion?

And this:So we voted for the wrong person because we‘re ignorant? In fact, we need to pass your test before we should be allowed to vote next time, because if we knew the answers we wouldn't have voted the way we did?

Additionally, you said the test should be the same as the citizenship test. There is nothing in that test necessary for a voter to be informed enough to determine what candidate to vote for.

I just took that test and missed two. They were both about the stripes on the American flag. Should I not be allowed to vote?

Do you see where I’m going with this? It is your criticisms of people’s characters and intellect, not their choice, that I find offensive.

I usually disagree with your political positions, but it would never occur to me to suggest you, or any other person, voted the way you did because you were not principled enough to study the issues. Nor would it ever occur to me to suggest you or anyone else were so selfish you voted the way you did so the government would do something for you you couldn’t do on your own.

The only conclusion I make is that we disagree.

My reaction is based on your ongoing posts that insinuate those who voted differently than you would have did so because we are too gullible to see through a politician‘s rhetoric, too lazy to inform ourselves, too ignorant, and too selfish to vote for the right person.

Again, it is your criticisms of a person’s intellect and character, not the person’s choice, that I find offensive.

Elphaba

The implications you made does not exist and I have no idea why you would imply that. Just because I stated that I believe you need to know your government before you can vote doesn't mean that YOU HAVE TO VOTE THE SAME WAY I WOULD! That statement is so idiotic, it is almost insulting! Elphaba, if you think I'm conservative - then you are wrong. So if you take partisanship out of this discussion, then we can go forward. I have never said nor implied that ALL OF YOU voted for the wrong person (whoever all of you meant). My statements doesn't just apply to election cycle 2008 - it applies to ALL ELECTION CYCLES!

WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY:

Before you can drive, you need a driver's license test - so you know the rules of the road. Before a foreigner can be a citizen of the United States of America, they need a citizenship test. So they know how the government is run and what the laws are before they're given the power to vote and be part of a jury. My suggestion is to make this test required for all Americans - not just foreigners applying for American citizenship. It doesn't mean that only those who "vote like me" (whatever that means) will pass the test. It doesn't even mean only conservatives or only liberals will pass the test! It means that you will have a more politically mature voting pool. People who are not as easily "led by the nose" by Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann. People who can see through the "spins" created by media. Especially, people who understands how the candidates match up to their own sets of principles instead of their principles getting "adjusted" willy-nilly to the current candidates in play.

This event in Philippine History that I posted is a perfect example of why I believe a politically mature voting public is an advantageous asset:

And some people just have no clue. These are the ones that need to be educated first before casting a vote.

EDIT: Okay, here's a perfect example. This guy - Erap Estrada - was a huge action hero in the Philippines. His movies are always with this theme - he gets beat up in the beginning and then in the end he triumphs and becomes hero to save the day! He was a really really good actor. So then, Ronald Reagan became President. So Estrada rode on that in his campaign! So, these people in the Philippines who are politically naive, they thought, hey, Erap Estrada is a hero! So, they became sympathetic. The more the opponent beat up Erap, the more the politically naive (who normally wouldn't bother to vote) come down in droves to the precinct to cast their vote and become part of the conclusion of the "movie" for Erap to become the hero to save the day! They seem to not realize that the government is not a movie or something. We had, what 5 years or so of Estrada as President where he emptied the coffers of the Republic. He finally got impeached. We're still in recovery - I mean, it wasn't so long after Marcos got ousted that we had to go through that.

I was very happy when another action actor - gosh, I can't remember his name, help me here Bini - tried to run for President and lost resoundingly. It showed the improved maturity of the voting public. But that came at a price. My brother's wife helped in voter's education in the remote regions of the country. The Philippine Congress is still riddled with basketball players, actors, and other celebrities who have no clue how to run a country - they got elected through their celebrity status. We are hoping this will change - slowly but surely. Manny Pacquiao (boxing guy) tried to run for Congress and lost. Big sign of improvement. Manny is an awesome guy but he can't even keep his boxing contracts straight let alone Congressional Bills.

So, how this ties back to Healthcare - if you notice here, I presented a completely non-partisan idea. And guess what - it gets attacked not by its merit or lack thereof, but by the idea that it came from somebody of the "opposite party"...

[Charlyc]

Actually the current war in Iraq is just a continuation of the first Gulf War. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate" conservative. I think now that was code for pro-life, big government, big spending liberal. Obama promised....that makes me chuckle. (sigh)

Americans have lost control. We have so forgot what made America great and have embraced the victimization rhetoric and have abdicated our freedom to the maniacs in Congress. They have the audacity to even think they represent the people.......sickening.

Hmmm...continuation of Gulf War? Intersting new addition to the long list of 'creative' arguments used to justify that invasion. But I did hear Bush say that he'd fix DC spending and stop big government and so on; but yes he did also claim to be a compassionate conservative i recall now that you've mentioned it.

I agree that the people have lost control, plus it seems that only 55% odd of the people actually take part in the process. But I don't think Congress controls anything -they're just a basketcase! probably beyond repair.

[Elphaba]

Before you can drive, you need a driver's license test - so you know the rules of the road.

The citizenship test does not teach you the rules of a political campaign.

Before a foreigner can be a citizen of the United States of America, they need a citizenship test. So they know how the government is run and what the laws are before they're given the power to vote and be part of a jury.

The citizenship test does cover how the government runs. But the fact is, there is nothing in those test questions that you need to know when it comes to studying the candidates' platforms and then choosing which one to vote for.

Additionally, the citizenship test has nothing in it about “what the laws are," except for those that determine how the government works. For example, there are questions about how long the terms are for president, senator, and congressman, which are obviously set by law. But not knowing these answers does not preclude a person from making an educated decision as to who to vote for.

I think it would be great if every American could pass that test. But it does not give anyone the tools they need to study each candidate's platform and choose who to vote for based on that information.

It means that you will have a more politically mature voting pool.

There is nothing in the test that will make a politically immature voter into a politically mature one.

People who are not as easily "led by the nose" by Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann.

There is nothing in the test that is going to persuade people not to be led by Hannity or Olbermann.

People who can see through the "spins" created by media. Especially, people who understands how the candidates match up to their own sets of principles instead of their principles getting "adjusted" willy-nilly to the current candidates in play.

First, there is nothing in the test that will make people understand how the candidates match up to their own set of principles.

Second, this is an example of what I’m talking about when I say what you write is offensive. Saying a person's principles can be adjusted willy nilly is criticizing that person's character, not his choices. I would prefer you stayed with people's choices.

if you notice here, I presented a completely non-partisan idea. And guess what - it gets attacked not by its merit or lack thereof, but by the idea that it came from somebody of the "opposite party"...

First, criticizing is not attacking. Second, my comments had nothing to do with partisanship; rather, they had to do with how you would have voted, and your critiques of those who voted differently.

Third, I did criticize your position on its merit when I wrote:

There is nothing in that test necessary for a voter to be informed enough to determine what candidate to vote for.

I stand by that statement.

Elphaba

Edited October 26, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

you should see my new swastika...went and bought a nice shiny one when Pelosi said that I carried one around....

Hey you!

Are you saying she's wrong, that people haven't carried swastikas around?

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey you!

Are you saying she's wrong, that people haven't carried swastikas around?

Elphaba

There were, but they were virtually unnoticed until Pelosi mentioned the issue. And the specific case Speaker Pelosi was referring to seems to have been a plant.

[rameumptom]

Really? why is it that whenever they get voted in, government spending actually increases and the actual size of the federal government increases, especially its military wing. Or don't you count the military as a federal government expense? -plus they invade other countries, from Bermuda to Iraq so there isn't much freedom there.

That "small government greater freedom" bit is today just a myth imo -or maybe just a campaign slogan.

Because there is a difference between neo-conservatives and true conservatives. Neos are a version of modern progressives that only differ in what they want to spend money on. George W Bush is a neocon progressive.

We have been seeing government grow exponentially over the last 50 years, especially since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and war on poverty (that one didn't work very well, did it?).

It is because of neocons that one sees conservative television and radio hosts attack the Republicans today. And I'm not just speaking of Glenn Beck. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has spent lots of air time attacking Bush and the neocons. And there are many others. Sadly, the neocons still are convinced they have the answers, even though they ran our deficits up over the last 8 years. Of course, the Democrats are now in bed with that same type of thinking: different cronies, same slush funds.

The key is to get power back to the states and localities, where the people have actual power and a voice. We also need to teach the people to rely upon themselves, and to quit looking to the Feds to solve all their problems.

Hate the monopolies the insurance companies have? Get several states together to form a cross state competition of companies.

Don't like trial lawyers soaking us? The states can fix most of that problem.

States can provide health care vouchers to its residents, and require any insurance company to accept them for a basic set of health care protections. Additional protection can be purchased by the individual.

This can go on.

Big government is bankrupting us. Social Security is running a deficit this year, and will go belly up within 10 years. Medicare will go belly up in less time, and it will be to the tune of several trillions of dollars (the new health care bill will not save it...or us). We have neocons continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Instead of a real stimulus package, we were given $800 billion of pork, courtesy of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It would have been vastly cheaper to just pay off $100K on everyone's mortgages in the USA (about $4 trillion total), and have the money trickle up to banks and companies. Homes would have been saved, people would have money in their pockets to spend on cars, and the good banks would also have benefitted (not just the bad, too big to fail, banks). The current bail out is around $13 trillion, so this would have saved $9 trillion that we'll eventually have to pay back - and most of it went to the bad guys who cheated.

So there are smart ways to do this. But none of the Dems or Republican neocons are interested in really fixing anything.

[cleanvisit]

I've got a question. Try to just give me a "non-politically biased response" if you can though.

Here it is: Can someone please explain to me, very briefly but as detailed as he or she deems possible, the differing opinions, plans, actions, etc. to this "New, Proposed Healthcare" Bill/Reform/etc. or whatever else it is.

This kind of talk gives me a headache!

Please send me a response via private message or just post below on this thread.

Thanks, and I am looking forward to your responses.

[talisyn]

Very briefly but detailed? I look forward to seeing the result

[Charlyc]

Because there is a difference between neo-conservatives and true conservatives. Neos are a version of modern progressives that only differ in what they want to spend money on. George W Bush is a neocon progressive.

.... It would have been vastly cheaper to just pay off $100K on everyone's mortgages in the USA (about $4 trillion total), and have the money trickle up to banks and companies. Homes would have been saved, people would have money in their pockets to spend on cars, and the good banks would also have benefitted (not just the bad, too big to fail, banks). The current bail out is around $13 trillion, so this would have saved $9 trillion that we'll eventually have to pay back - and most of it went to the bad guys who cheated.

So there are smart ways to do this. But none of the Dems or Republican neocons are interested in really fixing anything.

"Neos are a version of modern progressives that only differ in what they want to spend money on" interesting comments and ideas, although I thought this bailout total was more around the 4T mark. If it is 13T well then no wonder the US dollar is weakening today -and if China drops the dollar altogether, well, only a war with China will save the US economy imho

I actually like your ideas of the states doing more and the Fed less, I'd say thats what the founders tried to set up. It an idea that is also growing here in auz, the states simply end up doing things more efficiently by nature. But here all income tax -which kicks in at $6K- and business tax goes to the feds, the states only keeps a 10% GST or VAT as its known elsewhere, so the feds would need to agree to give up a massive amount of revenue to let this happen so I doubt it will happen anytime soon. In the US partisan politics would probably not allow it to be even debated in Congress!

[Palerider]

Hey you!

Are you saying she's wrong, that people haven't carried swastikas around?

Elphaba

oohhhh no....Queen Pelosi is always right ...just ask her...

[Charlyc]

I've got a question. Try to just give me a "non-politically biased response" if you can though.

Here it is: Can someone please explain to me, very briefly but as detailed as he or she deems possible, the differing opinions, plans, actions, etc. to this "New, Proposed Healthcare" Bill/Reform

1- DEMS: part of everyones taxes pays for the poor' basic medical costs and some of the middle class medical cost.

2- GOP: doesn't want to see their taxes pay for their fellow citizens medical cost period. Plus they want insurance companies to make as much money as possible in a free open market. Plus they want a full 'users pay' system where the wealthy pay for the best coverage and the poor who can't afford insurance, or someone denied coverage, go and pray in church for divine intervention when they get sick.

between the two, like mixing oil/water, wont happen so the majority wins out: so part of your taxes, if not all, will pay other peoples medical costs.

I hope that explains it

[Just_A_Guy]

2- GOP: doesn't want to see their taxes pay for their fellow citizens medical cost period.

That's a rather flagrant misrepresentation.

. . . and the poor who can't afford insurance, or someone denied coverage, go and pray in church for divine intervention when they get sick.

Another misrepresentation.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy