|
On October 02 2013 08:29 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you.  Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it. Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare. Considering that part of the world is highly regarded for its standards of living, all I will say to the high taxes argument is SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY. I don't disagree that there are issues with the ACA, just not the ones the right is complaining about. But, if this IS the "path to socialism/single payer", then let's do this already. 
I agree that it's kind of hard to argue against those communist nannies in Skandinavia... for instance, looking at Norway, we're talking about a country where one of the pressing issues regarding government spending is whether the state should start spending some its absurdely high monetary reserves (government pension fund)... on the one hand, that money just keeps piling up, but on the other hand, it's so much that spending it might cause inflation. That's what I call 1st world problems... and if that's the kind of distress caused by socialist states, then it might be time to consider socialism a viable option.
|
You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad
Why's this bad? If the money is being used for good things, and if it's being used responsibly, then high taxes are actually a good thing; you accomplish more together than what you can alone, and such.
|
On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it. Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare.
Pretty sure this guy's a troll. Nobody could possibly be so misinformed to think that "only homeless people" who make up "Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population" were not covered under the pre-ACA healthcare system.
It's getting really hard to tell these days though.
|
On October 02 2013 08:53 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:29 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it. Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare. Considering that part of the world is highly regarded for its standards of living, all I will say to the high taxes argument is SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY. I don't disagree that there are issues with the ACA, just not the ones the right is complaining about. But, if this IS the "path to socialism/single payer", then let's do this already. I agree that it's kind of hard to argue against those communist nannies in Skandinavia... for instance, looking at Norway, we're talking about a country where one of the pressing issues regarding government spending is whether the state should start spending some its absurdely high monetary reserves (government pension fund)... on the one hand, that money just keeps piling up, but on the other hand, it's so much that spending it might cause inflation. That's what I call 1st world problems... and if that's the kind of distress caused by socialist states, then it might be time to consider socialism a viable option.
While my grandparent's came here from Sweden, my Norwegian friends have made some pretty compelling arguments for returning back to Scandinavia and coming over there. I could think of worse problems than they have. At the rate things seem to be going (or not going) here I'll definitely be keeping my options open for a change of scenery, though I hate the winter =P
|
How is this about obamacare?
That law allready passed. And after that obama also got reelected?
This looks highly antidemocratic to me.
|
On October 02 2013 09:14 LaNague wrote:
How is this about obamacare?
That law allready passed. And after that obama also got reelected?
This looks highly antidemocratic to me.
The act of using the Nation's economy as a hostage and potentially ruining million of lives is the most irresponsible act I have ever witnessed. Are you kidding me? I don't care what party is doing what at this stage the republicans are neutering themselves acting like little kids...
Honestly this shit is just one step below an act of terrorism.
|
The government has shut down because they can't agree on the healthcare law(program)? What's the idea behind that? And is it not just a vote ?
|
On October 02 2013 09:20 Xialos wrote:
The government has shut down because they can't agree on the healthcare law? What's the idea behind that? And is it not just a vote ?
No, the government was shut down because the congress didn't pass next years budget. The republicans used the healthcare law just as leverage. The Democrats didn't cave, and so without a budget signed by congress, the government is only allowed to spent a minimum amount of money, and so all non-mandatory expenses are stopped for the moment.
|
are the congressman still paid?
|
On October 02 2013 09:25 mahrgell wrote:
are the congressman still paid?
Yep
|
On October 02 2013 09:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 09:20 Xialos wrote:
The government has shut down because they can't agree on the healthcare law? What's the idea behind that? And is it not just a vote ? No, the government was shut down because the congress didn't pass next years budget. The republicans used the healthcare law just as leverage. The Democrats didn't cave, and so without a budget signed by congress, the government is only allowed to spent a minimum amount of money, and so all non-mandatory expenses are stopped for the moment.
Oh, I see now. So they will sign the budget only if Obama removes the healthcare law?
|
On October 02 2013 09:25 mahrgell wrote:
are the congressman still paid?
Of course they are. When was the last time you've seen the big guns suffering from the mess they make?
Oh, I see now. So they will sign the budget only if Obama removes the healthcare law?
Precisely. They gave some excuses to it, but at the end of the day, they're using that control they have to get rid of a law 'some' of them didn't want baaaaack then, and still don't want now (even though it was voted on and passed already).
|
On October 02 2013 09:28 Xialos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 09:23 Nyxisto wrote:On October 02 2013 09:20 Xialos wrote:
The government has shut down because they can't agree on the healthcare law? What's the idea behind that? And is it not just a vote ? No, the government was shut down because the congress didn't pass next years budget. The republicans used the healthcare law just as leverage. The Democrats didn't cave, and so without a budget signed by congress, the government is only allowed to spent a minimum amount of money, and so all non-mandatory expenses are stopped for the moment. Oh, I see now. So they will sign the budget only if Obama removes the healthcare law?
Yeah, its basically a Mexican standoff, only in America.
|
On October 02 2013 09:28 Salazarz wrote:Of course they are. When was the last time you've seen the big guns suffering from the mess they make? Show nested quote +Oh, I see now. So they will sign the budget only if Obama removes the healthcare law? Precisely. They gave some excuses to it, but at the end of the day, they're using that control they have to get rid of a law 'some' of them didn't want baaaaack then, and still don't want now (even though it was voted on and passed already).
I don't really know much about american politics, but the judiciary system can't do anything about it? Usually when the legislative system can't get along, the courts have the power to interfere (In Canada at least). It's kind of a joke really... (and moreover as you said, it was already passed).
|
On October 02 2013 08:49 Gunther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:39 overt wrote:On October 02 2013 08:29 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector. Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law? What I mean is that most people are conflating the Republican's desired result (End Obamacare) and their opinion of that (negative), with the negotiating tactic (passing it in a budget resolution). Here is a question for liberals: If you wanted to get rid of Obamacare (I know, you dont), what is a better way to do it? Is there a chance that your alternative proposal is successful? If so, why? You suck it up and move on. When you've been fighting it for years and you still have no way of winning you move on and realize you've lost. Obama and the Dems aren't going to negotiate or cave. They have no incentive to. There's shit the GOP passes that I don't like but I wouldn't expect Democrats to shut down the government to get their way. So basically what they are doing now? ( Keep the status quo on the healthcare, or shutdown the government). Don't delude yourself, both sides are to blame even if ones ideas might be better than the others.
So the Republicans are the ones to pull the trigger and you are blaming both sides?
People would blame the Democrats if they tried the same tactic to stop a Republican bill. The democratic process of the US legislature has passed the bill AFAIK. What's happening right now is Republicans exploiting a loophole in favour of an idealogical stance.
Imagine if the Republican party took part in a military coup to prevent Obama's healthcare bill? The democratic process is more important than ideology - unless the process is flawed and in need of a change - but that's whole another discussion.
/edit
Ultimately, it is up to the public to see the situation for what it is, and I hope that the Republicans lose in polls because they alienate the moderate majority with such whacky antics.
|
The entire situation is really unfortunate, and incredibly idiotic.
I understand the Republicans wanting to combat Obamacare, so far as I understand them sticking up for their party values. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know absolutely nothing about the Affordable Care Act. Since I'm a college student I have insurance through my parents until I'm 26, so the issue doesn't immediately concern me.
However, whether you agree with Obamacare or not this is absolutely the wrong time to engage in petty partisanship. Holding hostage the livelihood of almost one million people for something so petty is absurd. The Affordable Care Act is law. It passed the legislative process and was upheld by the supreme court. At this point it isn't going anywhere.
The worst part about this, the thing that really makes me angry, is the fact that every person in Congress is still collecting a paycheck despite utterly failing to do their jobs. There are a few Representatives and Senators who are denying or donating their income until the impasse is over, but it's not nearly enough.
None of them, including the President, should be paid until this is sorted out.
|
On October 02 2013 09:28 Salazarz wrote:Of course they are. When was the last time you've seen the big guns suffering from the mess they make? Show nested quote +Oh, I see now. So they will sign the budget only if Obama removes the healthcare law? Precisely. They gave some excuses to it, but at the end of the day, they're using that control they have to get rid of a law 'some' of them didn't want baaaaack then, and still don't want now (even though it was voted on and passed already).
How would not paying the Congressmen make them suffer, exactly?
|
On October 02 2013 09:52 Fix637 wrote:
The entire situation is really unfortunate, and incredibly idiotic.
I understand the Republicans wanting to combat Obamacare, so far as I understand them sticking up for their party values. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know absolutely nothing about the Affordable Care Act. Since I'm a college student I have insurance through my parents until I'm 26, so the issue doesn't immediately concern me.
However, whether you agree with Obamacare or not this is absolutely the wrong time to engage in petty partisanship. Holding hostage the livelihood of almost one million people for something so petty is absurd. The Affordable Care Act is law. It passed the legislative process and was upheld by the supreme court. At this point it isn't going anywhere.
The worst part about this, the thing that really makes me angry, is the fact that every person in Congress is still collecting a paycheck despite utterly failing to do their jobs. There are a few Representatives and Senators who are denying or donating their income until the impasse is over, but it's not nearly enough.
None of them, including the President, should be paid until this is sorted out.
Here is the thing and someone made a very good point about the paycheck scheme:
The paycheck in a way helps balance Congress between the politicians. How? Well lets say one guy has 50000 dollars in the bank when another has 20M dollars. The rich can even bully more in comparison to the other politicians by coercing of money. With the paychecks it helps to keep the playing field even as much as possible to deter that kind of shitbag play coming out (170k dollar pay means more the to the 50k guy then to a 20M guy).
As much as I hate it, it is a necessary evil.
|
On October 02 2013 09:52 Fix637 wrote:
The entire situation is really unfortunate, and incredibly idiotic.
I understand the Republicans wanting to combat Obamacare, so far as I understand them sticking up for their party values. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I know absolutely nothing about the Affordable Care Act. Since I'm a college student I have insurance through my parents until I'm 26, so the issue doesn't immediately concern me.
However, whether you agree with Obamacare or not this is absolutely the wrong time to engage in petty partisanship. Holding hostage the livelihood of almost one million people for something so petty is absurd. The Affordable Care Act is law. It passed the legislative process and was upheld by the supreme court. At this point it isn't going anywhere.
The worst part about this, the thing that really makes me angry, is the fact that every person in Congress is still collecting a paycheck despite utterly failing to do their jobs. There are a few Representatives and Senators who are denying or donating their income until the impasse is over, but it's not nearly enough.
None of them, including the President, should be paid until this is sorted out.
Since you said you know nothing about the ACA I'll teach you one thing: You have insurance through your parents until age 26 (like you said) because of it.
|
Obamacare could and should be revised to fix it's problems, but nobody seems to be proposing an alternative plan that I know of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
