16 ways military spending takes away your freedom.

[Moksha]

... the specter of running an American military base or two for the next fifty years. Pity we didn't try the same policy in Korea.

Vietnam may have been a wholly unnecessary war. But once we've made a commitment to a friend, and that friend relies on our commitment for their very survival--we ought to stick by 'em.

Hope this doesn't translate into a fifty (+) year commitment to our friends in Iraq. Our involvement in that region has all the markings of the unwinnable war and money pit that was Vietnam.

[rameumptom]

All right. I may not have been clear. Here is the argument:

If the arguments you're using against Health Care are ridiculous when applied to another situation, then the arguments are ridiculous.

Blackmarch? The arguments against health care being issued on this website are ridiculous. If you're going to use those arguments, make certain that they can't be used against something you hold dear.

I'm glad that you saw that the arguments are ridiculous. It means you must be aware that using those same arguments against a national health care that has some restrictions are ridiculous.....

....

Here is a base rule of logic:

An argument must be able to be applied universally for it to be true.

And I think your logic is misplaced here. It doesn't follow. Arguments that are logical in one thing may not apply to another. Saying that it rained, therefore the grass is wet, is very different than saying the grass is wet, therefore it rained. An argument must be able to be applied universally for it to be true is correct, but ONLY when comparing apples to apples!

Our nation was attacked. We are spending money to defend our nation. Whether we are using the money efficiently or whether we wage the war wisely is another thing.

Our health care needs fixing. Most agree on that. The current health care bill does not fix most of the major flaws in the system. It also ends up costing at least $1 Trillion (and many think it will be over $2.5 Trillion). This bill was passed due to lots of bribes. There are billions of dollars of bribes in this bill. Bribes going to Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress. If it is such a good bill, why must we bribe Democrats to pass it? Our nation is already economically strapped due to Bush/Obama fiscal irresponsibility. How will adding trillions of dollars in tax increases, and trillions more in unfunded requirements to the states going to help us? When the nation goes bankrupt, who will pay for health care?

So, why can't we use the same argument for both? Because it doesn't work. The wars are expensive, and perhaps should be stopped. However, they are much cheaper than this health care bill, and have no unfunded liabilities to states to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Edited March 25, 2010 by rameumptom

[bytor2112]

Our health care needs fixing. Most agree on that. The current health care bill does not fix most of the major flaws in the system. It also ends up costing at least $1 Trillion (and many think it will be over $2.5 Trillion). This bill was passed due to lots of bribes. There are billions of dollars of bribes in this bill. Bribes going to Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress. If it is such a good bill, why must we bribe Democrats to pass it? Our nation is already economically strapped due to Bush/Obama fiscal irresponsibility. How will adding trillions of dollars in tax increases, and trillions more in unfunded requirements to the states going to help us? When the nation goes bankrupt, who will pay for health care?

Your logic is confusing to their feelings.....

[FunkyTown]

I really can't disagree with most of this. I do think I'm comparing apples to apples, though - Both are federally funded. Both involve limiting of freedoms. Both are put in place for the good of the majority, rather than the minority.

Your nation was attacked. How many people died in that? How many people die due to sickness?

Which is the greater threat?

As for the last part, I should point out that you're right: This bill should address fundamental flaws in the health care system. I can't remember whether it was you or someone else who quoted an absurdly high number for Medicaid, but the result was more than the UK spends per capita on the NHS.

If that's the case, then what should have been done is that someone should investigate the widespread flaws and gaping holes in Medicaid and fix it.

Now, I do disagree with 'This bill was passed due to lots of bribes'.

This bill was passed due to lots of political concessions, the same way that the stimulus plan worked out. It's not pretty, but that's the way of things. For some reason, Capitol Hill has become so corrupt and so partisan that simple and well-thought out plans do not pass. They are co-opted and manipulated and corrupted.

I would suggest that people need to boot out everybody. In Canada, when Brian Mulroney made the entire nation angry, his political party(The Progressive-Conservatives of Canada) went from having a House Majority to having five seats. They lost hundreds of seats because of partisanship.

Now, it would be very difficult. Even the most unpopular President in the history of the world would only lose a few states. Still enough to lose the Presidency, but not enough to send a message.

And I think your logic is misplaced here. It doesn't follow. Arguments that are logical in one thing may not apply to another. Saying that it rained, therefore the grass is wet, is very different than saying the grass is wet, therefore it rained. An argument must be able to be applied universally for it to be true is correct, but ONLY when comparing apples to apples!

Our nation was attacked. We are spending money to defend our nation. Whether we are using the money efficiently or whether we wage the war wisely is another thing.

Our health care needs fixing. Most agree on that. The current health care bill does not fix most of the major flaws in the system. It also ends up costing at least $1 Trillion (and many think it will be over $2.5 Trillion). This bill was passed due to lots of bribes. There are billions of dollars of bribes in this bill. Bribes going to Democrats, who have a majority in both houses of Congress. If it is such a good bill, why must we bribe Democrats to pass it? Our nation is already economically strapped due to Bush/Obama fiscal irresponsibility. How will adding trillions of dollars in tax increases, and trillions more in unfunded requirements to the states going to help us? When the nation goes bankrupt, who will pay for health care?

So, why can't we use the same argument for both? Because it doesn't work. The wars are expensive, and perhaps should be stopped. However, they are much cheaper than this health care bill, and have no unfunded liabilities to states to the tune of trillions of dollars.

[rameumptom]

How many bribes did they have to do to get Congress to approve funds for the 2 wars? Zero? And those votes were bipartisan. How many Democrats voted against health care? 34? No Republicans? Sounds like a problem with the system.

How many American people have died is immaterial. EVERYONE eventually dies. It is just a matter of when, how, and why. Nations have the responsibility to defend themselves, their culture, their freedom, their people. They also have to be fiscally responsible, so they do not destroy the economy. The Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, Greece, North Korea, and other nations went to strong centralized states and government manipulated economies, and it led to their collapse.

Nations do not necessarily have the responsibility to provide health care for everyone. And they ARE different, because as I mentioned, the war IS paid for, while health care has trillions in unfunded liabilities to the states. The war is hurting us financially for about $200 Billion/year. Health care, including Medicare/Medicaid, will hurt us in funded and unfunded liabilities for more than 1/2 Trillion /year.

You call it "political concessions." I call $300 Million to Senator Mary Landrieu's state of Louisiana a "bribe". Can you imagine the nice corporate board positions she'll be offered when she gets out of office??? In reality, a political concession is, if you vote for my pet project, I'll vote for yours.