U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   'Gone Old Party' (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/gone-old-party-207761.html)

BVS 10-13-2010 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abomb-baby (Post 6991853)
You don't understand how Obamacare takes away Freedom? Really? Never in the history of the United States has the Government forced a citizen to purchase something simply because he or she exists. NEVER. Not to mention that it will turn our health care into a bloated, governmental buearocracy. These people can't even get the post office in the black! Wake up!

It's these simplistic uninformed responses that lack all common sense really worry me about this country.

Hey the Post Office blah blah blah, no I've never heard of email or online billpay? That can't be a reason, can it?

You don't want to buy insurance? Ok so what do we do with you when you've neglected your health and now have a treatable disease? Let you rot, or let you become a drain on the system? You want the freedom to become a drain?

Canadiens1131 10-15-2010 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abomb-baby (Post 6991853)
You don't understand how Obamacare takes away Freedom? Really? Never in the history of the United States has the Government forced a citizen to purchase something simply because he or she exists. NEVER. Not to mention that it will turn our health care into a bloated, governmental buearocracy. These people can't even get the post office in the black! Wake up!

You seem to have never attended a Political Science 101 course. Here, let me educate you a little bit. We don't live in anarchy, we pay taxes and give up some freedoms to the gov't and authorities for protection and well-being.

If your house catches fire, the volunteer fire department (socialism) puts it out. You most likely get power and/or water from a public utility (socialism). Your scared Tea Partying grandparents may rely on Medicare (socialism) to keep them getting their medication. Maybe your rich lawyer cousin belongs to a Condo Association (socialism).

Also, you seem to have never taken a Journalism or Critical Reading class, or never showed up to them. It's pretty obvious to anyone vaguely following the Healthcare Debate that the current model of healthcare in the United States is unsustainable, fiscally-speaking. Like, completely breaking the country, fiscally-speaking. If private enterprise is so efficient, why is your private clinic doctor incentivised to perform as many tests as possible on you to diagnose a problem, even though many of them are unnecessary and wasteful of resources? (The answer is to avoid ridiculously harsh malpractice litigation and personal profit, but I digress).

Wake up sheeple! Good luck with Ron Paul 2012 :up: :lol:

Willful, blissful ignorance and anti-intellectualism are the two greatest threats to America in the 21st century.

Moonlit_Angel 10-15-2010 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 (Post 6994731)
It's pretty obvious to anyone vaguely following the Healthcare Debate that the current model of healthcare in the United States is unsustainable, fiscally-speaking. Like, completely breaking the country, fiscally-speaking. If private enterprise is so efficient, why is your private clinic doctor incentivised to perform as many tests as possible on you to diagnose a problem, even though many of them are unnecessary and wasteful of resources? (The answer is to avoid ridiculously harsh malpractice litigation and personal profit, but I digress).

Add in the fact that many of these tests never wind up seeming to actually fix the problem in the end, anyway-if anything, they make it more complicated and worse. Which makes the "avoid crazy litigation" argument ironic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 (Post 6994731)
Willful, blissful ignorance and anti-intellectualism are the two greatest threats to America in the 21st century.

Tooooooo true. Fantastic post :up:.

Angela

maycocksean 10-19-2010 12:48 AM

Can anyone explain to me why the Right isn't up in arms over the long-standing government mandate that all drivers have car insurance?

How is that okay, but mandatory health insurance is this Great Evil?

nathan1977 10-19-2010 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean (Post 6999138)
Can anyone explain to me why the Right isn't up in arms over the long-standing government mandate that all drivers have car insurance?

How is that okay, but mandatory health insurance is this Great Evil?

Mandating that drivers have insurance is different than government providing insurance...

kramwest1 10-19-2010 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean (Post 6999138)
Can anyone explain to me why the Right isn't up in arms over the long-standing government mandate that all drivers have car insurance?

How is that okay, but mandatory health insurance is this Great Evil?

:lol:


Well, and your mortgage company mandates that you carry house insurance, but apparently private companies mandating things is not evil, but the government mandating things is. :shrug:

Canadiens1131 10-19-2010 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramwest1 (Post 6999147)
Well, and your mortgage company mandates that you carry house insurance, but apparently private companies mandating things is not evil, but the government mandating things is. :shrug:

The best thing lately is government officials (such as congressional reps) denouncing government-mandated healthcare, while they in-turn receive a very cushy government-funded healthcare package. Socialism!!!!!!!!

It's just the rich and ultra-rich, fooling the middle and lower classes into thinking that their right-wingish reps give a shit about their horrible lives. :lol:

Moonlit_Angel 10-19-2010 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 (Post 6999223)
The best thing lately is government officials (such as congressional reps) denouncing government-mandated healthcare, while they in-turn receive a very cushy government-funded healthcare package. Socialism!!!!!!!!

BINGO. It amazes me that more people don't seem to have caught on to that blinding hypocrisy. Or if they do know, they really should be calling the politicians out on that fact a hell of a lot more often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 (Post 6999223)
It's just the rich and ultra-rich, fooling the middle and lower classes into thinking that their right-wingish reps give a shit about their horrible lives. :lol:

Mmhm. I really don't understand why people continue to think that's true. They may claim to understand the plight of the "blue-collar Americana" folks, they may claim to have the same "small-town values", but how many times do we have to have incidents that prove that BS to be the exact opposite before people catch on and realize that's all smoke and mirrors? It's strange how people can be so incredibly cynical about their government officials and yet still honestly believe that when a politician says, "I'm just like you", they're telling the truth :huh:.

I've had the same question about the insurance stuff, too. If we're so hellbent on being opposed to mandates, we should perhaps be a wee bit more consistent about it, no?

Angela

MrsSpringsteen 10-19-2010 09:00 AM

LAS VEGAS — Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle is seen in a new video making an unusual comment about race, telling a group of Hispanic students that some of them look "a little more Asian."

In a meeting with Hispanic students Friday, Angle defended campaign ads that lean on images of dark-skinned men to blast rival Harry Reid's record on illegal immigration. She claims she didn't know the people in the TV spots were Hispanic.

A new video of the meeting released by the Las Vegas Sun on Monday shows the Republican candidate arguing that it is difficult to pinpoint someone's race.

She tells the Hispanic students that some of the students look "a little more Asian" and says she herself has been called Nevada's first Asian legislator. Angle is white.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBesR...layer_embedded

maycocksean 10-19-2010 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathan1977 (Post 6999144)
Mandating that drivers have insurance is different than government providing insurance...

Fair enough. I had gotten the sense from talking to some conservative friends that one of the main objections to the current health care reform law is the mandate that people buy health insurance. Was I mistaken?

But assuming for the moment that you are correct, could you (or anyone else on the Right) explain to me how it is that the government is now, under the health care reform law, is providing health insurance to everyone? Or even most people?

BVS 10-19-2010 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathan1977 (Post 6999144)
Mandating that drivers have insurance is different than government providing insurance...

That's not what is happening Nathan.

nathan1977 10-19-2010 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maycocksean
could you (or anyone else on the Right) explain to me how it is that the government is now, under the health care reform law, is providing health insurance to everyone? Or even most people?

I don't consider myself Right, so I don't claim to know what their objection is -- but the government has been providing health care to a portion of its citizens for years, via Medicare and Medicaid, both programs of which have been a huge burden on the U.S. economy. And that's only for programs that are extended primarily to the elderly. I'm not one to argue that health care should be left to the private markets, because I do think that government has a responsibility to care for its citizens (and I put about as much faith in private markets as I do in public institutions) -- but I also think that programs that have been proved to be financially broken need to be re-conceived, not simply expanded.

Regardless, the health care debate is a huge national issue that is not going to be resolved easily (and sure as hell not on a U2 message board).

maycocksean 10-19-2010 10:50 PM

^My bad, Nate. It's just the pickins' are pretty slim these days what with INDY and the rest having departed the scene. You're about the closet thing we have to regular posting conservative. Sorry about that. . :shrug: :wink:

My queston was about some NEW way and drastically expanded way in which govt. has "taken over" health care, not about the long standing programs in place (which interestinglly some opponents of the reform feared would be lost in the reform. What was the sign I saw? "Tell the government to get its hands off my medicare!").

I agree that both programs along with SS are not functioning well and are huge drag on our budget. I'm not sure what can be done to fix them though.

BVS 10-19-2010 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathan1977 (Post 7000172)
I don't consider myself Right, so I don't claim to know what their objection is -- but the government has been providing health care to a portion of its citizens for years, via Medicare and Medicaid, both programs of which have been a huge burden on the U.S. economy. And that's only for programs that are extended primarily to the elderly. I'm not one to argue that health care should be left to the private markets, because I do think that government has a responsibility to care for its citizens (and I put about as much faith in private markets as I do in public institutions) -- but I also think that programs that have been proved to be financially broken need to be re-conceived, not simply expanded.

Regardless, the health care debate is a huge national issue that is not going to be resolved easily (and sure as hell not on a U2 message board).

I do appreciate that you understand nuance and gray, and I do agree there has to be some reconception of certain programs and hope this will be the first step. But there was still a HUGE void not being attended to with the current system.

Moonlit_Angel 10-20-2010 03:35 AM

Agreed. Neither system is perfect and both definitely could do with some sprucing up and fixing, but an option (which is the word that people always seemed to skip over when debating this last year-people are aware what that word means, right?) from the government isn't exactly akin to some mass takeover of our country.

But when it comes to something as personal as one's body and health, oddly enough, people get kinda touchy and nervous. Which I can totally understand-but there's better ways to handle such a discussion than the way many people went about it in recent months.

Saw an article about that thing with Angle recently :doh:. I'm dead serious when I ask this question, no joke: Is there something wrong with her? I'm just curious, 'cause I'm at a complete loss to explain her behavior and words any other way.

Angela

nathan1977 10-21-2010 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 7000485)
there was still a HUGE void not being attended to with the current system.

No doubt. The question is, what's the most effective way to fill that void without bankrupting -- or significantly overburdening -- the federal government. Higher taxes are a possible solution -- I find it amusing when Americans complain about being overtaxed, given the tax situation in Europe, and as a result I wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes to offset the cost of my grandmother's health care -- but at the same time, I have no confidence that health care companies will keep costs at anything close to a reasonable level, or be interested in fair practices. Moonlit_Angel's comment about the public option being merely an option is fine, until you consider the fact that, in the race for a more profitable bottom line, companies are considering ditching their health care plans -- or their employees -- altogether.

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

Quote:

"The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they've got," says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they've got."
Again, a real and sustainable solution for government to insure quality of medical care for its citizens still seems a way off.

BVS 10-21-2010 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathan1977 (Post 7002111)
Again, a real and sustainable solution for government to insure quality of medical care for its citizens still seems a way off.

Any reform was going to take awhile. This plan will evolve and change over time. People know(at least most thinking people) that the current system is screwed up, but it they really knew how bad of a cluster it really was they'd be shocked.

Those that opposed reform in anyway were delusional.

Those that opposed government reform for savings accounts and the like were detached from reality.

It's something that should have been done in small steps towards, rather than big steps and then later taking small steps back. But with a blind opposition this would have never happened, this was the only way it would have worked.

deep 10-22-2010 04:57 PM

Quote:

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'

12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 22, 2010

By MELANIE MASON / The Dallas Morning News
mmason@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

We all know when the first (Boston) Tea Party patriots did not get the satisfaction they were looking for.

The next step was 'armed revolution'. "God inspired revolution', no less.

BVS 10-22-2010 05:02 PM

True colors start to shine...

deep 10-22-2010 05:06 PM

This guy is in your state.

If you want to save the Union
you better vote straight GOP and tell your friends to do the same.
Think of the children!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com