|
On October 08 2013 01:20 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2013 19:44 sc2holar wrote:Americans who argue against free and equal healthcare for everybody amaze me. So cash flow should dictate life expectency, and poor people should die from diseases that could easily be cured. amazing, you really have dont a good job at creating a society that benefits humanity as little as possible and instead does nothing but worship and bow before the dollar sign. your countrys knees must be killing themselves, maybe thats why your economy is falling over  ? When you stray too far on the right scale (liberalism/pseudo-regulated capitalism) or too far left (socialism) you eventually collapse. stay in the middle like germany or sweden etc, we are doing great. Just like not every country wants a democracy, not every country wants universal healthcare. It is concept that not all can accept because it is something that must be slowly accepted into the society of that country. Personally I think health care reform is a must, however I don't think that it will be possible in the near future because of the sheer political and logistical clusterfuck that would ensue.
Except that the countries that don't want democracy generally don't want it because they've been, well, subject to (often immoral) dictators. Very rarely do we find sophisticated intellectuals or educated populations rejecting democracy in favour of totalitarianism, for example.
Health care, though, is a different beast: there are actually a lot of people who would probably consider themselves pretty intelligent arguing that universal health care is some sort of infringement on privacy or property or something something whatever. All this stuff about deficits and "responsible spending" and whatnot is really just pretense. Strictly speaking, if you didn't show citizens the charts/tables listing deficits/surpluses, they probably wouldn't be able to tell you when they lived under which.
It really comes down to this idea of not wanting to have one's own tax dollars used to fund the health care of someone else. That's where we get all these "taxation is theft" and the government has a monopoly on force arguments, and it's why the libertarians have been gaining some traction in recent years.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think this is a terrible position, but it's a position which conservatives purport to be demonstrably true. The entire debate is filled with hyperbole; compared to pretty much every other first-world nation, Obamacare isn't even close to being equivalent. It's universal health care in the weakest of senses, so when people reject it, they can't really go to the "I'm not rejecting UHC, but merely this manifestation of it" position because this is about as minimal as it gets.
There's nothing to compromise on. Obamacare is a compromise in concept.
|
On October 08 2013 04:44 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 04:07 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 04:03 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 03:59 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 03:48 farvacola wrote:
That's actually been a point of contention among left wingers for quite some time. In the eyes of many, myself included, Obamacare does not go nearly far enough and still allows for a weird coddling of private interests. It is still better than nothing though. Honestly all I see in Obamacare is this administration's version of the Iraq war. Money for friends and business interests bidding the highest to get their pockets lined. No different than Bush with the oil and construction businesses. It's a load of shit too, let it help this or hurt that, I honestly doubt no one will ever make sense of it. All I know is I lose my insurance as of January 1, 2014 which amounts to just another lie by the government. This shutdown should simply drive it to the point of complete replacement and overhaul of this horrendous pile of shit the U.S. government has become. That's quite the claim considering Iraq was a rather destructive war and this is a program that is supposed to get healthcare to millions if people. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. What I mean is at the core of it, it is purely about a business interest getting their way. In Iraq and Afghanistan we saw companies like Halliburton and oil companies make a killing (no pun intended) and now we're seeing the forced purchase of health insurance and the consolidation of Healthcare providers. It's all seemingly amounting to a couple of huge business interests getting their way. On the surface its a lot of fluff, horse-shoed in like every other terrible piece of legislation during Christmas and all under the guise of helping people. Most of America had health insurance before it. I have a lot of medical professionals, doctors, nurses, etc in my family and no one, nor anyone they know or work with likes it. At the end of the day all I see is just another law that helps a few and will probably eventually hurt many. Hold on. The law that will give medical insurance to millions of Americans is...hurting the many for the sake of a few?
Get some context in there. No one in the medical field is happy about this thing. People like myself are getting bullied at the very least by their providers. It is claiming to help get coverage for what...10% of Americans that didn't have it? So yeah let it insure people now and work and look great short term but at what cost? Again I doubt anyone will ever make sense of what happens whether it helps or hurts but nothing is done in today's american politics to hurt 20% of the GDP. Don't be so naive.
|
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction.
|
On October 08 2013 04:23 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote:
I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it. Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc. Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts.
The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke.
Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need.
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends.
Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
|
can you read your own posts whiteout constantly facepalming?
|
United States24799 Posts
The ACA does seem to need some adjustments in order to be more fair for healthcare providers... I don't think the sponsors of the original bill would argue otherwise, but they also wouldn't consider this imperfection in the current implementation to be grounds for dismissal of the law over adjustment.
On October 08 2013 05:04 BillGates wrote:
The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke.
Well, it does for me, and most other americans on this forum... can't speak for you.
|
On October 08 2013 05:04 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 04:23 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote:
I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it. Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc. Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts. The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke. Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need. There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends. Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
HAHAHAHHA
If this is all you have to contribute, please get out of this thread. This is a discussion of united states government, not a utopian anarcho-capitalist commune.
|
On October 08 2013 05:04 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 04:23 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 04:20 BillGates wrote:
I wish, No more deficits, debt, patriot act, NDAA, federalization of police, no more FDA, CIA, FBI, etc...
Reality is, its all fake. There is no shutdown. It would be great if the federal government just shut down, they are useless anyways, just destroying the economy, going into war, spying, you name it. Yeah, the government does a really shitty job of making sure the drinking water is safe and warning you of when it isn't, responding to accidents and clearing the roads when an accident occurs, etc. Successful government is invisible. You only ever notice the problem parts. The government makes sure the water is safe? That is a great joke. Police respond to accidents, but they do not clear anything up, private companies do. The community funded and voluntary based firefighters may help if there is a need. There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends. Everything else can be community based and voluntary, based on contracts, charity, private business.
You forgot healthcare in that list. And your tacit suggestion that volunteer firefighters are better than local government employed ones is simply wrong.
|
On October 08 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction.
Lol where'd you hear that? Newspaper? TV? I've got over a dozen medical proffessionals in my family (my dad is a doctor for example). Not a single one likes it. Nor do they have any stories of knowing someone that does.
|
There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends
How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game?
|
On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game?
Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious. That said he's wrong and has an annoyingly silly opinion  .
The government has a bunch of legitimate uses by normal-people-standards. We're not all libertarians - why would they decide what's legitimate and what isn't?
|
Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious.
Sole practice purpose? Basically, yes. America hasn't had anything even resembling a threat to their actual country in ages.
What's more, maintaining an "active" military seems pretty unnecessary in peacetime, unless one is expecting to be attacked sooner or later. Either way, whatever minimal military would exist if one accepts the argument that one is required would be nothing like the one which presently exists.
|
On October 08 2013 05:09 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction. Lol where'd you hear that? Newspaper? TV? I've got over a dozen medical proffessionals in my family (my dad is a doctor for example). Not a single one likes it. Nor do they have any stories of knowing someone that does.
First off, though I am a broken record on this site in this regard, check out this wiki on availability heuristics; they make for poor evidence generally. And to add to that, I, too, come from a family full of those in medicine, and every single one, while critical of the act's implementation and concessions, thinks it is progress. See where that gets us? Nowhere.
|
On October 08 2013 05:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious. Sole practice purpose? Basically, yes. America hasn't had anything even resembling a threat to their actual country in ages. What's more, maintaining an "active" military seems pretty unnecessary in peacetime, unless one is expecting to be attacked sooner or later. Either way, whatever minimal military would exist if one accepts the argument that one is required would be nothing like the one which presently exists.
If you think that deterrence isn't a thing then you're wrong. Having our active military is what gives us influence in areas outside our own borders to protect american interests. Farvacola and sam!zdat might come tell you that doing so is a bad thing, but the US military absolutely serves a purpose.
|
On October 08 2013 05:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious. Sole practice purpose? Basically, yes. America hasn't had anything even resembling a threat to their actual country in ages. What's more, maintaining an "active" military seems pretty unnecessary in peacetime, unless one is expecting to be attacked sooner or later. Either way, whatever minimal military would exist if one accepts the argument that one is required would be nothing like the one which presently exists.
The biggest power of the military is its latent ability.
Its a bit like nukes, the tread of them alone is enough. They dont actually need to be used to have an effect.
This goes for the military as a whole as well, only in extreme situations they need to act, and their pressence alone prevents manny extreme situations from occuring in the first place.
|
On October 08 2013 00:20 Ghanburighan wrote:
The response to K's argument (that threatening not to pass the budget or raise the debt ceiling (let's link these for convenience, they are de facto linked already) will lead to negotiations each time) is very simple.
That's exactly what the budget vote and debt ceiling is meant to do. If it were automatic, it would not be needed. It IS intended as a check on government. When the legislature feels that the budget is unreasonable or the debt situation is out of control, the can refuse to vote on it.
So it's not some unfair tactic, it's one of the core mechanisms in any modern state. It's less common, though, to have the legislature controlled by the opposition. But that doesn't in any way change the principle.
Anything that comes after this (repeating the check on balances, not getting enough in return, etc) is merely negotiations before the negotiations.
There seems to be a disconnect between what you're reading from my posts and what I'm actually saying. Negotiations on the budget are what is meant to happen. For example, Democrats asked Republicans in April to set up a conference for both sides to work on a common budget and solve budget differences (note that the Republicans refused, and refused 18 times since then).
What is not meant to happen is one party refusing to engage in actual negotiations ("you gain something you want and I don't in exchange for me gaining something I want and you don't", to make it short) and asking instead for its demands to be met or else it is going to shut down the government/fail to raise the debt ceiling. I explained in detail in my post on this page why this was not normal negotiating behavior. Negotiations on the budget are "one of the core mechanisms in any modern state" (not the debt ceiling, btw, since from what I know this only exists in the US), but the tactic I just described isn't. Do you not see the difference between the two, or...?
|
Poll: What will happen.The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting (20) 77% There will be some compromise just before usa defaults. (3) 12% There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted. (3) 12% Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting. (0) 0% There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default (0) 0% 26 total votes Your vote: What will happen. (Vote): The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting
(Vote): Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting.
(Vote): There will be some compromise just before usa defaults.
(Vote): There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted.
(Vote): There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default
|
On October 08 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:09 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction. Lol where'd you hear that? Newspaper? TV? I've got over a dozen medical proffessionals in my family (my dad is a doctor for example). Not a single one likes it. Nor do they have any stories of knowing someone that does. First off, though I am a broken record on this site in this regard, check out this wiki on availability heuristics; they make for poor evidence generally. And to add to that, I, too, come from a family full of those in medicine, and every single one, while critical of the act's implementation and concessions, thinks it is progress. See where that gets us? Nowhere.
We could keep going and say mine are right and yours are wrong? ^_^
|
On October 08 2013 06:13 Rassy wrote:Poll: What will happen.The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting (20) 77% There will be some compromise just before usa defaults. (3) 12% There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted. (3) 12% Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting. (0) 0% There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default (0) 0% 26 total votes Your vote: What will happen. (Vote): The republicans will give in after stalling and just before defaulting
(Vote): Obama will give in after stalling and just before defaulting.
(Vote): There will be some compromise just before usa defaults.
(Vote): There will be some compromise but only after the usa has defaulted.
(Vote): There wont be a compromise and usa goes into complete default
Voted that the republicans will cave right before default, mostly because Boehner said he wouldn't allow it to happen: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/us/politics/debt-limit-impasse.html?_r=0
Boehner can avoid a default simply by allowing the House to vote on a bill to increase the debt ceiling, and I do not believe that he is willing to blow up the economy when there are indications that he never wanted this fight in the first place.
Edit:
Also, if Boehner is crazy enough to fail to allow such a vote, I think it is highly likely that Obama will find a way to raise the debt ceiling regardless. I'm not an expert on Constitutional law, but I suspect there is precedent for Obama citing an imminent threat to national security and raising the debt ceiling by executive order.
I am virtually certain that a default will not occur, and the financial markets seem to agree with me.
|
On October 08 2013 06:13 Rumpus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 05:24 farvacola wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Rumpus wrote:On October 08 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
That is simply not true; there are many doctors and healthcare providers who consider the ACA a step in the right direction. Lol where'd you hear that? Newspaper? TV? I've got over a dozen medical proffessionals in my family (my dad is a doctor for example). Not a single one likes it. Nor do they have any stories of knowing someone that does. First off, though I am a broken record on this site in this regard, check out this wiki on availability heuristics; they make for poor evidence generally. And to add to that, I, too, come from a family full of those in medicine, and every single one, while critical of the act's implementation and concessions, thinks it is progress. See where that gets us? Nowhere. We could keep going and say mine are right and yours are wrong? ^_^
Or we use statistical data because we're interested in an actual answer and not your respective anecdotes. I'm sorry if you think your small little bubble is a good representation of the world but I have news for you; It isn't. Any anecdotes, from you or anyone else, are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Doesn't matter if they're good or bad anecdotes, nor does the subject matter. Unless you gather enough anecdotes (statistically relevant) - and have the ability to verify them - you'll never be able to get a proper representation of reality out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
