On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
Look, everyone knows someone who faced something like this. My wife's best friend, whom I love dearly, came down with a horrible disease and has required constant and expensive care for over a decade now. She'd be absolutely screwed if she didn't have healthcare coverage. I get it. It sucks.
HOWEVER, to make sound national policy, you have to put the individual human aspect aside and think of what benefits the population as a whole.
I'm coming from a different background and mindset it appears, what is so wrong with healthcare as a right as opposed to a privilege? Are European nations in a worse fiscal state than the US, despite many of them subsidising (or in the case of the UK) providing healthcare?
I don't know, it's one of the few things I genuinely cannot wrap my head around. I can understand the anti-welfare state mentality, or people who want to curb immigration, although I don't agree a lot of the time I can see where they're coming from. On Healthcare issues though my mind often boggles
According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
Look, everyone knows someone who faced something like this. My wife's best friend, whom I love dearly, came down with a horrible disease and has required constant and expensive care for over a decade now. She'd be absolutely screwed if she didn't have healthcare coverage. I get it. It sucks.
HOWEVER, to make sound national policy, you have to put the individual human aspect aside and think of what benefits the population as a whole.
You mean like the benefit of having the population as a whole being covered and having the freedom of not having to live in abject fear of being unlucky from serious illness. Or the social benefits of a healthier more robust workforce? You know the same benefits every other damn first world country has?
Whats that, you're just actually an asshole?
I'm sorry thats harsh, youre just a terrible excuse for a human being.
(clarifications for the mods, the man just told me it was in society's best interest that my fiance and others like her died rather than have a country have healthcare , so I think I get to call him those things)
Huntsman not looking as strong as he did last debate, which is a shame because he looked awesome before.
The Santorum bit attacking Paul's foreign policy stance, and the crowd booing Paul, was the highlight of the night. Paul making perfect sense and presenting facts, and Santorum countering with rhetoric and emotion. Reminds me why I can't actually vote republican.
Also ridiculous is Gingrich saying he doesn't care if Perry and Romney are scaring people, because Obama scares them every day. Everyone on stage wants to defeat Obama, Newt. This isn't a rally, it's a fucking debate. Pick a side.
On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
Look, everyone knows someone who faced something like this. My wife's best friend, whom I love dearly, came down with a horrible disease and has required constant and expensive care for over a decade now. She'd be absolutely screwed if she didn't have healthcare coverage. I get it. It sucks.
HOWEVER, to make sound national policy, you have to put the individual human aspect aside and think of what benefits the population as a whole.
How does making sure the entire population, including the most vulnerable, is well taken care of not benefit the population? Or did you mean "we need to think of what benefits the wealthiest and least vulnerable"?
Yes, government wastes billions, but so do private institutions.
Do you really think that this is reasonable logic? I'm not letting government off the hook for waste, because my money is taken from me without my will. If I purchase a product / service from a company, they can do what they want with that money, it's theirs, they've earned it and they can spend it on whatever they want. Government does not get that privilege, they work for us and they will be held to our rigid standards. We have and will remove(d) them if we are unhappy with their performance.
I'm also not understanding why you keep saying that Republicans aren't so bad, because while Democrats don't take seriously entitlement reform, Republicans don't take seriously the idea of tax reform. Both parties (and at the moment Republicans) are both guilty of not being able to recognize how to fix the actual problems in the country.
Welfare reform needs to come first, like I've said before it's not optimal to dump more money into an inefficient system, and its silly to crank up business taxes when faced with a recession. Skyrocketing corporate taxes will not solve anything either, as you can literally take ALL the profits of the 40 top multinational corporations, add em up, and you will still not come close to matching the budget shortfall for the US government this year.
Seriously, do the math. The problem lies with entitlements and welfare more so than corporate tax shenanigans.
Let's remember also that the Supreme Court allowed corporations to donate campaign financing, which is hugely supported by most people on the right. Yes, people on the left have supporters, but the overwhelming support that corporations hand their money to, are those on the right. The argument goes both ways.
I hope you don't have a problem with how a private firm spends its money, considering you can boycott them if you don't approve.
Did you even look at my numbers??? The most money over the past 20 years has been sent to Liberal candidates even when you factor in corporations. Do you really want my tax money to fund democrats while simultaneously prohibiting a private firm from supporting who they want just because they tend to support republicans? Preposterous. And, no public unions should not be donating to election campaigns. Private unions can donate all the money they want to liberal causes, but not a penny should come from public wages, for reasons I have already explained.
So once again, all I'm saying is that both parties are at fault for taking in massive donations. Your source can say one thing, but others sources (like this year for 2012) can say [link=http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php]another[/link].
Republicans are spending more now, but I bet that the numbers will be less lopsided once the GOP candidate is chosen and the liberal cash holders know who to spend the money on for their media attacks.
Yes, welfare requires reform, but not in the way that many conservatives are proposing.
Care to elaborate? All I ever hear is how welfare / SS can't be touched even though both systems are hemorrhaging cash to unqualified recipients and have been proven unsustainable in the future.
Let's remember that while government does waste money, it's also important to remember that government in the last fifty or so years, has done many things right
A classical, vague, progressive argument that I will not bother addressing right now until you've narrowed this down into specific instances. Otherwise I will simply say excusing waste is terrible for people like me who (will) put food on the table for our own family as well as three other families.
On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
Look, everyone knows someone who faced something like this. My wife's best friend, whom I love dearly, came down with a horrible disease and has required constant and expensive care for over a decade now. She'd be absolutely screwed if she didn't have healthcare coverage. I get it. It sucks.
HOWEVER, to make sound national policy, you have to put the individual human aspect aside and think of what benefits the population as a whole.
I'm coming from a different background and mindset it appears, what is so wrong with healthcare as a right as opposed to a privilege? Are European nations in a worse fiscal state than the US, despite many of them subsidising (or in the case of the UK) providing healthcare?
I don't know, it's one of the few things I genuinely cannot wrap my head around. I can understand the anti-welfare state mentality, or people who want to curb immigration, although I don't agree a lot of the time I can see where they're coming from. On Healthcare issues though my mind often boggles
The question wasn't so much about universal healthcare versus private, electable healthcare so much as it was about what the state should do if it operating in a private healthcare system. If someone elects not to buy healthcare (note, they CHOOSE not to get it), should the state pay for their health care if they get sick? Ron Paul's answer was basically "no, individuals should live with the consequences of their choices."
On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hear stories like this a lot and it honestly breaks my heart. We live in a country where people die because they can't afford to live. It's fine to disagree with Obamacare, and I have problems with it too. But those who deny that our health care system is completely broken really don't get it.
Is that the general view of the American populace though or does it vary where in the country you go, or by background etc?
It's just interesting that to me it seems in America for many the word government has negative connotations far beyond what we experience over here. Over here grievances will open up over policy, or the right level of government, but there is a lot less of the outright disdain for government itself.
Regarding healthcare, it just seems to me that a free market is anything but. Have health insurance expenses not been rising and rising, but with no appreciable gain in the product itself? The companies themselves have become so huge that introducing new competitive elements to drive prices down for the consumer and create CHOICE are severely limited. Limited indeed to those companies that profit from charging a lot for their service. It just seems an alien concept to me that something as huge as your life itself should be the product of some kind of cost/benefit analysis on your part.
I don't agree with utilising individual anecdotal tales of the healthcare system fucking people over, but the whole concept of the healthcare industry being: A. Efficient B. This efficiency being the product of free market ideals and competition
On September 13 2011 10:20 Elegy wrote: Ron Paul doesn't want to flat out say the guy should die.
It's not popular to say it, but he's absolutely right. People should bear their own risks.
I'm going to pick on you with a cool story bro.
My Fiance was diagnosed with cancer at 22. We absolutely lucked out because she worked for a school district and had health coverage. You know what one of those evil government jobs people rail against.
Even with the so called free coverage after deductibles and co pays that Romney was trolling out, it was still thousands of dollars a month. I make good money but it was still nearly crippling to handle that burden. At that age group youre still looking at hundreds of dollars a month for health care coverage on a single plan and when you consider the average income for that age group, you'd be going without a lot of food just to not die of a catastrophic illness.
You know what the worse part was? Having to live in fear not of dying from cancer but losing the insurance. District downsized three times during that period and we be up late at night not from the near crippling affects of radiation and chemo (all of during which she had to work to keep her insurance) but hoping she wouldn't be fired from no fault of her own. Yes I know she could still get cobra but in her situation it would have been several times what she had been making at that job just to get. Don't even get me started of the scares when the district changed health insurance suppliers.(Don't lecture me on insurance I'm more qualified than you to speak about it)
She couldn't quit, because of fear of losing coverage and because most non-government employers would have waived her coverage from their plans by either their admission or request from their provider. Stuck in a job battling a disease from no fault of her own living in fear. That's apparently the american dream now, and you know what watching those sick sons of bitches cheer about a 30 year dying because he couldn't afford(justify) insurance, really ticked me off tonight more than I think anything has before.
Look, everyone knows someone who faced something like this. My wife's best friend, whom I love dearly, came down with a horrible disease and has required constant and expensive care for over a decade now. She'd be absolutely screwed if she didn't have healthcare coverage. I get it. It sucks.
HOWEVER, to make sound national policy, you have to put the individual human aspect aside and think of what benefits the population as a whole.
I'm coming from a different background and mindset it appears, what is so wrong with healthcare as a right as opposed to a privilege? Are European nations in a worse fiscal state than the US, despite many of them subsidising (or in the case of the UK) providing healthcare?
I don't know, it's one of the few things I genuinely cannot wrap my head around. I can understand the anti-welfare state mentality, or people who want to curb immigration, although I don't agree a lot of the time I can see where they're coming from. On Healthcare issues though my mind often boggles
The question wasn't so much about universal healthcare versus private, electable healthcare so much as it was about what the state should do if it operating in a private healthcare system. If someone elects not to buy healthcare (note, they CHOOSE not to get it), should the state pay for their health care if they get sick? Ron Paul's answer was basically "no, individuals should live with the consequences of their choices."
No, his answer was more along the lines of "It's not the Government's job, but we shouldn't think that someone like his family, friends or church wouldn't step in to get him the care he needs." Which he's right about, but then you can just narrow the question to a person without social support and leave that argument flat.
Still, it's a bad idea, because it should be that lifesaving care should be a privilege for every citizen of the country regardless of their financial status, and unfortunately there isn't a single candidate, Democrat or Republican, that is in favor of this view.
The title of that video irks me the wrong way. Paul's point makes perfect sense if you believe in personal freedom. If the man willingly opts to not pay for health insurance, he gambles and assumes the responsibility of his decision. If that means he can't afford intensive care/etc, that's the risk he took.
While the health care debate is an easy hot button issue, that question and Paul's responses is not at all about health care. It's purely personal freedom, and I respect Paul for standing his ground.
I get the feeling that, agree or disagree at least Ron Paul shows some kind of consistent, coherent underlying philosophy to justify his views.
The others will whine about spending while not ever tackling issues like the ridiculous US defense budget, espouse freedom but advocate forcing women to go to abortion counseling. You can't have it both ways
The title of that video irks me the wrong way. Paul's point makes perfect sense if you believe in personal freedom. If the man willingly opts to not pay for health insurance, he gambles and assumes the responsibility of his decision. If that means he can't afford intensive care/etc, that's the risk he took.
While the health care debate is an easy hot button issue, that question and Paul's responses is not at all about health care. It's purely personal freedom, and I respect Paul for standing his ground.
The video cuts off at a bad time as Ron Paul says Churches and non profit groups should help and that nobody should be turned away. The point is the reaction of the crowd particularly near the end.
On September 13 2011 10:55 Elegy wrote: I just have no faith in a large portion of the American electorate. I mean, the same people that booed Ron Paul for saying American foreign policy over the past decades might have just a little to do with terrorist attacks are the same people that are going to vote. These people are my neighbors.
Makes you wonder what would happen if voting day was on a weekend...
I can't believe that it's even a conversation anymore. Candidates still get on stage and say "DURR THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!" and they get applauded. The man telling the truth, that American foreign policy creates terrorists, gets boo'd. Somehow, people still can't grasp simple cause and effect, but I guess they don't like to be told the truth. It's been 10 years...
Motivation for the Taliban according to American Exceptionalism:
(I declare war on peace and happiness!)
I liked this debate a lot better as it seems the other candidates got more air time. If the candidates keep quoting Cain's right a few more times, my guess is Cain's going to be the next VP (similar to the 'Joe's right' from the Democrat primaries last go around.) I don't think he'll win the ticket, but he might get picked up for VP.
I disagree with the CNN commentators a bit. I thought Perry was floundering a bit with the whole social security thing and a couple other topics where he was searching for words.
I think it's sadly amusing that in answer to how would you attract the Latino vote, most continued the rant on border security. That's where Romney managed to slip a little dig in, but even he went back to the border security stuff.
Blah, Austrian Economics. As much as a lot of things Ron Paul says makes sense, I definitely wouldn't vote for him simply based that.
Edit And yeah, the whole crowd cheer was rather ridiculous; YAH! LET HIM DIE! Paul was suggesting greater community responsibility, which I respect because it doesn't make him a heartless monster unlike some in the audience. However, the church isn't what it used to be. The community is not built around the church and they no longer have the means to be the social safety net. Furthermore, with the growth of urbanization and a transient work force, the personal safety net of a community far less cohesive leaving people much more isolated.
On September 13 2011 11:26 Sufficiency wrote: According to one professor in University of Toronto who studied the election in 2008, many Americans are willing to vote a Republican simply because Obama is black.
Not sure if her claims can be proven or not, but yea, this is the Republican Party's last draw, I think. No moderates are going to vote them.
If anyone other than Romney or Perry somehow wins, then Obama has a guaranteed second term.
Moderates may be swung over. Perry will use his "I created jobs in Texas!" argument, while Romney had been the only sane person running for the Republican nomination until Perry came along.
EPT
