Obamacare

[NateHevens]

EPIC MULTIQUOTE POWERS! ENGAGE! (part 2)

Wow, that seriously has to be one of the most stupid and ill informed things I’ve ever read on FC.
Have you ever actually met a muslim? Or been to a mosque? I do suggest you learn a bit more before spouting such drivel. Utter ignorance and bigotry. You’re just spreading hate. Exactly the same as the extremists do.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Hadith?

I have. I own a copy of it, and the Quran. Neither likes Jews very much, but the Hadith can get ugly. Any historian will tell you that Muhammad did not like Jews... at all.

That said, I've yet to meet a Muslim who shares those views. I know Muslims who are quite happy to shop at kosher markets and eat at kosher restaurants because "the only real difference between kosher and halal is the language the prayer is said in". Every single Muslim woman I know is actually quite liberal; many are vegetarians, not one wears a hijab, none of them are virgins, and they are a lot like any other average woman in the US. Some of them are even Sex Positive Feminists!

My school, FAU, has a Muslim student organization, and they actually took part in a public campaign back in 2001 of Muslims damning what happened on 9/11 (not to mention the Islamic leaders who placed prices on the heads of Osama Bim laden, Al Quaeda, and everyone else involved in the terrorist attacks). We hear a shit-ton about the fanatics (especially from Fox... what was that about being "balanced" again?) and barely anything about all the other Muslims...

It's pathetic, IMO.

Eventually you, like billions of other people, will die. Life is terminal get over it. For those saying this country so badly needs health care, ( especially those of you from europe) where the fuck will we get the money for this? We already spend over a trillion a year more than we take in.

I can already think of one place; the bloated Defense budget. We spend way too much money on defense in this country as it is. Defense we really don't need, at least, not as badly as its budget would have you believe.

I think Bill Hicks said it best:

(Please note that he's talking about Bush Sr and the first Iraq War... not the current one... so consider that and realize just how well this applies to our current situation... he was a prophet, I swear... and yes, I'm saying that as an atheist and a naturalist.)

I have answered your question, albeit very simply, but it is the answer. We need to be free. See, it's not just healthcare that's fucked up. Everything is. In order to fix it, we need our freedom. The government needs to be taken back by the people. Remember the constitution? "A government for the people, by the people" We don't have that now and we need it back if we ever want to get out of this mess.

Trivia question:
How big was the US when the Constitution was written?

You think the Founding Fathers could have imagined anything close to what the US is today?

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if they could be brought into our time and see what the US is today. Would they change anythings? Would they have second thoughts?

I really do think they would. No, I don't think it would stop them from declaring independence, but I do think our Constitution would look very, very different.

An I really do believe that Constitution was written as a living, breathing document. While I don't think it should be outright changed, I think it's about damn time the US held a public conversation about what the constitution means to us in the 21st century...

Like, for example... is the electoral college really all that important anymore (I think it should be abolished)? Does freedom of religion mean freedom from religion (I think it does)? What exactly does the word "militia" mean in the second amendment (I don't think it refers to the average citizen)?

I also think the constitution requires some new amendments:

1. Transfer all the rights, tax breaks, and privileges married couples get to civil unions, and remove the government entirely from marriage, as marriage is a religious institution. Governments would then recognize only civil unions, thus giving all couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike, equal footing, while allowing religious institutions their right to be homophobic not marry homosexual couples.

This would mean that all things that previously required an official marriage certificate would now only require proof of civil union. Civil unions are what the government would have anything to do with; not marriage.

2a. Corporations are NOT PEOPLE! Period. End of subject. I'm not willing to discuss this.
2b. Remove corporate influence from politics completely. No more PACs, no more of any of that bullshit. Only people should be able to influence elections, and only so much. Greater wealth should not mean a greater voice.

3. My vote doesn't count.

Do you know why?

Because I don't want to vote for either Obama or Romney, but voting third party is about as useful as voting for your favorite between Coke and Pepsi... and that may actually be more useful.

So if I want any say in the political process, I have no choice but to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican, but this is worthless because neither side will take this country in a direction I want. Neither side is any good for me, because both sides are owned by the corporations.

So it's time to get rid of the political parties. They are not needed. All they do is screw up the process. People should be voting on a candidate based on his/her individual positions on individual issues, not on what party they belong to.

4. Reduce the cost of political election campaigns. A political wannabe should not have to spend millions in order to stand a chance of getting elected. That's just crap. A student with a brand new political degree should stand as much chance of winning governmental office as Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. It's not fair that they have an advantage over the average person just because they're wealthy, and I think it's time an amendment to the Constitution addressed this.

And that's just the start.

You want a really simple answer? Cut defense spending by 200 billion a year and pay for healthcare.

HELL YES! This would be incredible.

Also, use the money saved from cutting defense spending to increase NASA's budget (which has very rarely been over 1% of the total budget) so we can finally put a scientific colony on the moon and get men to Mars. We can do it. The only real obstacle is money.

Or, we could get the free market back into healthcare, instead of it being chosen for you by your employer. If everyone could choose their own healthcare plan based on their needs and means, it would increase competition driving prices down and services up.

Why do you trust the free market so much? The free market is at least half of the problem with this country.

The human condition is needs>resources. The question is who do you want rationing your healthcare? The government and their bioethisicts or the private sector? The point is your care is going to be rationed, especially since it is getting priced out of reach. It upsets me that the government would ask me to vote away others rights by tempting me with something I need so desperately. The ends do not justify the means.

You know, I do not trust our current government, but I trust the corporations even less. Sorry, but IMO the government is the lesser of two evils in this case. I do not trust Wall Street, Corporations... I don't trust the market at all.

Really... so why do they come here for care? Why are both Canada and Britain looking to privatize more and more of their healthcare?

Got stats for that?

No.

Seriously.

Do you?

Because according to the 2012 World Health Organization report, the US ranks, I believe, 37 in overall quality of health, below both Britain and Canada. Seriously. Here's the entire report in PDF format. Read it for yourself. The US is actually behind pretty much every other first world country on the planet in health and healthcare. That, sir, is fucked up.

So I do not believe this claim... at least not for the majority. I'm sure there are a few rare cases (as in, less than 10%), but I do not believe it is a common practice. Sorry.

Sorry about the whole double-posting thing, but there's a lot I wanted to respond to.

 

[BigDaddyVapor]

You know... this and the MSDS shit, just really sours me on this place. I've let it take up too much of my time, which I can read this shit anywhere else.

If I've ignored your reply, its intentional. I'm done... this will play out like its going to, regardless of what happens here.

 

[t-dub]

Reading for further understanding:

The Declaration of Independence: Read it again (especially the list of grievances) if you haven't in a while, or ever . . .

Alexis de Tocqueville: "Democracy in America"

Friedrich Hayek: "Road to Serfdom"

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.​

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.​

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.​

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.​

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.​

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.​

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.​

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.​

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.​

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.​

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.​

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.​

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:​

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:​

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:​

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:​

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:​

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:​

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences​

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:​

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:​

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.​

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.​

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.​

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.​

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.​

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.​

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

[WatTyler]

EPIC MULTIQUOTE POWERS! ENGAGE! (part 2)

Nice posts. You'd get my vote if I had one.

Since you asked I have read the hadith. I've also met many muslims, travelled in a muslim country and been to mosques, and I have yet to hear a muslim anywhere call for the execution of christians and jews, except the odd nut-job on television. I've got to stand by my comment that to post that "muslims call for the execution of Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, and anyone who does not submit to islam." is ignorance, bigotry and spreading hate. The extremism today isn't a fair reflection of a religion, as you acknowledge, and I actually think it's only quasi religious anyway. Similar to way we fought politically and culturally motivated battles in the name of god in years gone by.

Any historian will tell you that Muhammad did not like Jews... at all.

Nor did countless Popes. Times have changed

It's not that helpful to focus on the negatives of any religion through history; no religion has a clean conscience in that context. To do so is divisive and could only fuel more conflict. They all have a dark side to be misused by man, even buddhism.

It doesn't hit business. Business will just drive up the price of oil and make us pay for it. I'm with Obama in wanting to find cleaner energy, but driving up the cost of the energy we already use is fucking stupid. Green energy could create a boatload of jobs. This is how an energy policy should work... not by raising energy costs.

I must confess I'm not totally up to speed on Obama's proposals, but renewables are not yet cheap enough to be competitive and something needs to skew it in their favour or they won't get off the ground and happen until fossil fuel scarcity really bites and lord knows how much co2 has been emitted. 'Tax' the alternative, or support renewable development with money from other taxes?. We have massive plans for renewable energy here in Scotland- we're looking to 100% renewable electricity generation by 2020, mainly by wind and waves. After that they want to sell the surplus overseas. It's picking up frightening speed and seems on target. But there are massive subsidies on offer. We've got to pay for it one way or another.

So I do not believe this claim... at least not for the majority. I'm sure there are a few rare cases (as in, less than 10%), but I do not believe it is a common practice. Sorry.

It's not common practise. It's true that it's only in very rare cases involving advanced specialist care. If it's unavailable in the UK for whatever reason, the NHS will occasionally send people abroad to get treated. Article here; http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/06/us-medical-care-haven-nhs

 

[Makai]

No Competition in socialized medicine. Lie duly noted.

You know nothing about healthcare in Germany. Everyone gets it. And basically everyone can choose to which doctor he goes to. There's also several public and private insurances you can choose from. So there is not just competition between doctors, but also competition between insurance companies.

The healthcare costs per capita in Germany is ~3000$, in the USA it's ~6000$ and people in Germany are healthier. So yeah, the "socialized medicine" in Germany is superior to the system the USA has right now.

 

[Rick]

I may be an old Liberal who ignores much of the meat but I have learned a bit about human nature and business over the last 66 years.
Capitalism cannot and will not “fill the demand” in certain markets/needs of all people. Capitalism works when the buyer of the product or service has the means to pay for the service or product. Capitalists want nothing to do with the market of healthcare for the poor(unless the ‘government’ pays the bill). The consumer of the service has no money so fuck’em. The ‘government’ gets involved because there is a demand not met by our current system. The question has been asked here many times…”so what do you propose? What do we do with just the folks with pre-existing conditions?” The answer we often get is “take care of it yourself”. That’s a great answer and shows how prejudice harms us all. We close our minds to serious questions about our positions, then re-direct the discussion to how worthless the other guy is.
The fact is we have hurt ourselves in this country for years with our model of employers being the main supplier of health care insurance for our people. Our corporations, partnerships and other business owners would love to give up that responsibility. There are already signs that they will be bailing soon as the major providers of healthcare insurance. Our current system is a mixed up hodge podge of different coverage for everyone and no coverage for millions. Lots of rules to guarantee profit, like the pre-existing condition rule we all know about.
We need to all be in the pool. We need the young healthy folks in the pool. We need the ‘mandate’ for that reason. This is about the physical health of all our citizens . Our current system does not work. Makais last words says it all. We spend more and do not do that great spending more.
Now for a few facts since the above was my opinion.
Pat and I are both on medicare as we are over 65. We contributed to medicare for years before becoming eligible. We now pay $175, out of pocket, every month for our medicare coverage. That is for each of us. $115 out of our SS checks and $60 for the supplemental coverage. We also are in pretty good health and hardly ever go to the doctor. So we pay $350 every month as a couple for our socialized coverage with no pre-existing clauses and a $3G maximum outlay per person per year if we get sick. Hardly ‘freeloaders’ on socialized medical coverage.
We both kept individual Blue Cross policies for years before medicare. Hardly ever used that coverage but had to have it because if either of us got sick, we would lose our only asset, our home. Our asset would be liened in hours if we went to the hospital without insurance. We worked hard and paid off debt so our assets were cherries for the big guys.
We all have to pay liability insurance if we want to drive our car on public roads and do it legally. As a driver, I want to know the other guy has insurance. That ‘mandate’ is good for us all. That mandate also means poor folks have to pay for that before much else. If you cannot drive, it is hard to keep a job to feed and shelter your family. If you try it without insurance and get caught, then your troubles really start.(maybe some opinion here)
Back to opinion, I am very happy to see some kind of start at national health care system in the US. It is surely far from the best answer but it is a start in the right direction. I am one who has wanted to see something like this happen for many years.I am also glad to see taxes along with it. Somebody has to pay for it. I totally agree we could reduce military and aid for the top 2% to pay for it but that will not happen for now so we all chip in.
I also love it when close minded people show us all how they think and discuss important issues. All the folks in the middle form some opinions about issues by the messengers discussions, or lack thereof.

I also want to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. Lots of good information presented by all. Also lots of insight into how difficult 'politics' is these days. At one time, politics was the art of compromise. Not sure what it is now but it sucks. Three cheers for Chief Justice Roberts.

edit: here is the argument. "You do not have to buy a car". What if you want to get and keep a job? Ever been asked "can you get to work on time every day?"

 

[Vicki]

It's so disheartening to see people fighting with each other about politics, faith, and ideals when this country was founded on the freedom to pursue happiness without the threat of persecution. I am guilty of not being open minded to the conservative view, and find it upsetting when people aren't open to the liberal point of view. That's the problem.

Until we all can find compromise between the two, this country is going to continue it's decline. We can't count on our elected officials to stop fighting and do what's best for this country, but we certainly can count on ourselves. Change starts one person at a time.

 

[t-dub]

The fact is we have hurt ourselves in this country for years with our model of employers being the main supplier of health care insurance for our people.

Excellent point, and why are things like this? Employers started offering "benefits" when income tax rates became extreme during WW2. So the government created this problem in the first place.

We need the young healthy folks in the pool. We need the ‘mandate’ for that reason.

That is correct, this won't work unless people are COMPELLED to participate. The first warning sign something is wrong here . . .

but had to have it because if either of us got sick, we would lose our only asset, our home. Our asset would be liened in hours if we went to the hospital without insurance. We worked hard and paid off debt so our assets were cherries for the big guys.

Same boat here pal. The system definitely needs to be fixed but liberty does come with risk, you can't legislate it all away.

We all have to pay liability insurance if we want to drive our car on public roads and do it legally. As a driver, I want to know the other guy has insurance. That ‘mandate’ is good for us all.

Please lets stop comparing healthcare to driving, its a poor analogy. I can choose not to drive but I can't choose to not need medical care (sorry for the double negative)

One thing to consider when trying to decide if you want a corporation or the government rationing your care. At least with an organic marketplace we have the culmination of millions of individual decisions, people voting with their $, and we can choose to shop elsewhere. The government, otoh, has the force of law behind it, something no corporation does, and there is no place to go if that system doesn't fulfill your needs.

Just something to think about because the solution to this mess is going to be a hybrid of what existed before now, what exists now, and how it will all be hammered into submission in the coming months/years.

 

[lwien]

It's so disheartening to see people fighting with each other about politics, faith, and ideals when this country was founded on the freedom to pursue happiness without the threat of persecution.

It always gets really nasty around election time. You think THIS is bad. Look back in our history.

1800 Jefferson versus Adams
Jefferson said that Adams was a "hideous hermaphrodite who has neither the force or firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman". GREAT line.
Adams replied, asking voters, "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames, female chasity violated, and your children writhering on the pike? Great God of compassion and justice. Shield my country from destruction". Reminds me of that unforgettable TV add that Johnson ran against Goldwater with a little girl picking the petals off a daisy when all of a sudden an atomic bomb vaporizers her. EXACT same tactic.

1828 Jackson versus Adams
Jackson said that Adams sold his wife's maid as a concubine to a Czar of Russia, to which Adams fired back that Jacksons wife was "a dirty black wench, a convicted adultress and prone to open and notorius lewdness." Guess it was open season on the spouses back in those days. LOL..................

1860 Lincoln versus Douglas
Douglas said that "Lincoln is the leanest, lankest, most ungainly mass of legs and arms and hatchet face ever strung on a single frame". LOL............talk about making it personal.

 

[lwien]

(delete)

 

[Hippie Dickie]

(delete)

my sentiments exactly!

 

[t-dub]

So, now that things are calming a bit its time for some more thought. Lets assume that the government is in charge of rationing our healthcare. What criterion do you guys think they are going to use? Did it ever occur to you to look? Well here it is (yes that is Rahm Emanuel's brother):

Ezekiel Emanuel: COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM

The full text: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

A little preview since the full text is 30+ pages:

"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system."

Care to guess what this means folks? This means that the elderly and disabled are going to be rationed first.

The key term here is "distributive justice" Here is what it looks like:

 

[lwien]

Makes sense to me, and I'm 68, so I'm at the far end of the curve.

It's just the "women and children" first mentality, eh?

There are already laws in place regarding organ transplants. Don't younger, healthier patients get them before sickly elderly patients? If not, in my opinion, they should.

If there's a choice to be made between the rich getting better health care versus the youngest getting better health care, I would vote for the youngest.

 

[t-dub]

If there's a choice to be made between the rich getting better health care versus the youngest getting better health care, I would vote for the youngest.

Agreed. But the wealthy are getting bumped up the transplant lists or going to China. If you look the VERY young are targeted as well, women, not so much. The interesting thing to note is that in spite of all the assurances that the "plug wasn't going to be pulled on grandma" it looks like under this system, it would be.

 

[lwien]

But that's just one scenario out of many, many, t-dub. Just because it was written by Rahm's brother, imho, doesn't make it any more plausible than any other scenarios that may exist out there, eh?

 

[Rick]

I have to agree with lwein to t-dubs point. There is always rationing of health care services. That happens now through the insurance companies and just the price of health insurance. We are already seeing changes imposed by the law like the pre-existing condition clauses going away. I like that.

I actually think we will fare better than we have with private enterprise in charge. They(PE) will still be doing the job but they will be regulated more.

BTW, Rahm was demoted from the Obama administration a while back. "I'll take Mayor of Chicago"
You have valid points t-dub. I'm am guessing you do not think we should ever ration health care? for anyone? Bad guess on my part?

BTW, I have not read the bill but I will guess there will always be an option for those that want the Cadillac coverage. Pay more money is all. You can bet there will be the plans for the those with plenty of resources. If I am wrong here, please let me know.

We could end up with something better than all those Socialist countries if we would just talk about it(politically).

 

[t-dub]

But that's just one scenario out of many, many, t-dub. Just because it was written by Rahm's brother, imho, doesn't make it any more plausible than any other scenarios that may exist out there, eh?

No, imo, you are wrong. These are the words of the bioethisist, the member of the "panel" that is going to decide on what you get and what you don't, and the criterion they are going to be using for making that judgement. Zeke wrote this paper specifically to advise O'bama on how the new system will function. This is a glimpse behind the curtain. Please do some reading if your going to disagree. Rationing is a fact of life, it exists, its part of the human condition, like life and death itself. Wishing it gone would be like wishing the food chain didn't exist, a pointless exercise.

Maybe I would be better off with the pain pill, but I want to make that choice for myself.

 

[BigDaddyVapor]

To those that I (still) call friends. Those that I have spent my time on this board spreading prayers for, laughing with, those... I come here to have a rapport with, not because of politics... but because we get something else. We have a different bond.

How any one of you may feel about Obama, his policies, whatever... wouldn't ever stop me, from helping one of you in need. Being there for a favor. I'd love to sit down and share a trench, or whatever with any one of you. And I've got some BOMB ASS shit. I'd be a good friend. lol

Vicki, I would most like to apologize to you. You have always been there with words of encouragement and always been a kind and thoughtful person. While, I do hold one's feelings as your own responsibility and that no one can make you feel bad, except yourself. I didn't help matters and I came at a friend, guns-a-blazin'. Anyone would rightfully be upset.

I don't come here to discuss politics. The first time I did, we actually had a good conversation. This one, is a war. I'll fight it on a different battlefront, than shitting on my friends.

PEACE.

 

[t-dub]

I actually think we will fare better than we have with private enterprise in charge. They(PE) will still be doing the job but they will be regulated more.

I pray you are correct Rick, and I'm sorry if I came across as shitting on anyone. I kind of hung back in this thread since it was so emotional and I have peeps on both sides I like . . . I am hoping more information is better than less here, to further this discussion in a healthy and productive direction.

 

[Rick]

The slow poke just realized something we may be missing here. The bill is there. The proposals are there. The references are there as we have seen in this thread. Public access to all that goes on. Public record.

Try that with a corporation in charge. They can do all the secrets they want and we don't even know they are secrets.
t-dub, BDV, TP and all............I know we are all sincere and very real in our responses. Drama happens in life. I accept my share of the blame for my role in it all here on this thread. I also wish everyone the best in their life road.
I do like to hear other points of view. Always have. Hell, I used to love the John Birch Society.....in the late '60s...........til the fucking libs in college got to me...........
gotta go get some drumsticks on the BBQ.
Happy 4th everyone.
From the best country in the world, way up in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

 

[t-dub]

The slow poke just realized something we may be missing here. The bill is there. The proposals are there. The references are there as we have seen in this thread. Public access to all that goes on. Public record.

Ok Rick, I guess it comes down to who you trust (I don't really trust either one, they are just different animals). I think governments hide plenty of stuff too and with the force of law backing them up, well, it makes a difference. And I think we can all agree that the process didn't proceed with the promised "transparency"

I like this video because he doesn't assume to answer where anyone should draw the line for themselves, but you have to complain in the beginning, when you still have a chance.

 

[Frederick McGuire]

I must admit, the attitudes I see from some people in the US confuses me.

I often see any attempt at a change to the healthcare system over there (which from what I can see if Fucking terrifying in some situations, and pretty undesirable in others) decried as some horrible Communist/socialist/whatever-ist scheme to destroy everyone's lives, with big bad mr government coming to ruin the lives of every single person ever...

I don't care is a system is XXX-ist, I care if it works.
From my casual observations of the US system, it doesn't seem to right now.

I've heard stories of people who have cancer, and they decide not to seek treatment, purely because the treatment is so expensive that it will ruin the rest of their life being in so much debt, that it's not worth it...
That is FUCKED UP.

Having said that, I'm sure I could find similar anecdotes from pretty much anywhere in the world, It just seem to be more prevalent in the US.

I'm no expert on how the health system runs here in Australia, but I know a bit.
We pay a 1.5% medicare tax. (part of our income taxes)
and if you earn over X amount, you have an extra 1% medicare tax if you don't have your own private health insurance.

That's mostly it.
No Govt. piss tests,
No real major govt. meddling at all so far as I can tell.

It's not the Government essentially giving us their own version of private health insurance (which is the impression I've gotten from some of the discussion going on), which sounds stupid to me.
That system sounds useless to me, because of all this "pre-existing conditions" crap means that people who are sick (i.e. the people who most need the healthcare) aren't going to be helped...
WTF?

I don't feel like some massive injustice is being rammed down my throat by having to pay a 1.5% tax...


I just honestly can't understand the position which I seem to see often (not so explicitly stated, but the general tone is: )
"You're poor and sick? Then go die please"
"I don't care you can't afford the cost of insurance, PAY ME A FUCKTON OF MONEY TO HEAL YOU NOW"

I don't see how someone contracting a disease and not having health insurance is justification for them to have a shit quality of life for the rest of their life.
"be sick, or be massively in debt" isn't exactly an enticing choice...

(I have Private health insurance as well BTW, I've never needed it, but it's certainly a good thing to have.)

 

[Vicki]

I like this video because he doesn't assume to answer where anyone should draw the line for themselves, but you have to complain in the beginning, when you still have a chance.

He makes very valid points, but it wasn't just Jews that the German's killed. They also killed a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses too, and other people as well. It was horrific, and I despise Hitler. He talked about standing up to them, but it's scary because they have guns. Our gov't has guns too. They can also throw your ass in jail if you defy them. Who wants to be the first one here to stand up and say (to the government), "I will not comply with barbaric marijuana laws, and I WILL use it, whether you like it or not!" It would be a hell of a lot easier if you were just opposing Obamacare. At least they wouldn't throw you in jail for that.

Myself? I'm not ready yet. No matter how fucked up the laws are, or how fucked up our gov't is to make laws like this. I'm not ready to spend the rest of my life in jail. That's just me, though, but it seems like there are a lot of people just like me. Why? Because we are scared, plain and simple.

 

[t-dub]

I am really impressed that no one came in here and said something to the effect that this couldn't happen in America. Because it already has. So today I give this little tidbit as a gift to FC, instead of the history lesson it was intended to be. Let us also not forget the plight of the American Indian and the internment of the Japanese Americans during WW2, which by the way, SCOTUS UPHELD as constitutional.

Abraham Lincoln had to get involved to solve this mess.

General Order No. 11 (1862)


Text of Grant's Order

General Order No. 11 decreed as follows:

1. The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
2. Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
3. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits.[8]

In a letter of the same date sent to Christopher Wolcott, the assistant United States Secretary of War, Grant explained his reasoning:

Sir,​

I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into Post Commanders, that the Specie regulations of the Treasury Dept. have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied of this have I been at this that I instructed the Commdg Officer at Columbus [Kentucky] to refuse all permits to Jews to come south, and frequently have had them expelled from the Dept. [of the Tennessee]. But they come in with their Carpet sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel any where. They will land at any wood yard or landing on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy Cotton themselves they will act as agents for someone else who will be at a Military post, with a Treasury permit to receive Cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.​

There is but one way that I know of to reach this case. That is for Government to buy all the Cotton at a fixed rate and send it to Cairo, St Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders, they are a curse to the Army, might be expelled.[9]​

​

The order went into immediate effect, with Jewish traders and families in Holly Springs, Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, and Paducah, Kentucky being forced to leave the territory. Such a sweeping interpretation may not have been intended by Grant; his headquarters expressed no objection to the continued presence of Jewish sutlers, as opposed to cotton traders. However, the wording of the order singled out all Jews, irrespective of their occupation, and it was implemented accordingly.​

 

[lwien]

Wow..............first time I ever heard of this. Thanks dub.