Tea Party

[keso cheese]

Almost everybody in this country works for a living.

Most people in this country can't afford health insurance.

And most of the ones who can, get left hanging when they need the coverage that they payed for.

 

I realize this, thats why there does need to be regulation, and when insurance companies can be sold state to state it will create more competition, like car insurance, most people can pay for car insurance for that same reason. Im not saying I like this countries health care but no one is even looking at alternatives for it.

[keso cheese]

Because it already works for every single other civilized country.

What the fuck is there to look into?

We need and deserve exactly what countries like Canada and England have.

And if you don't want it, then don't use it.

Either roll the dice by paying for private insurance, or die when you get sick.

But don't shit on the rest of ours parade.

 

Its because we were subsidizing them for their health care cost, we quit doing it though and now its not going so well, France is now trying to find a new way of doing it because their system is failing. If we do decide to do universal health care it should be like Germany's system.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

and if you read my post you would have seen that I said the government needs to regulate them and keep them in check.

 

 

 

But that's unAmerican commie/Nazi/RomanGreeko/Alien Lizard talk!!!

 

You don't even know what side you're on.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

I doubt the founding fathers would want the government to intervene with healthcare, the stood for freedom of the people, thats why they wanted the federal government to be small and the states to take care of their citizens, but we let the fed get to big.

 

 

 

It's not "intervening". It's providing. Providing something that we the taxpayers desperately need and deserve.

Is it "intervening" when the government fixes potholes in the streets and highways?

How about when they rescue hurricane victims from their roofs and put them up in temporary housing?

Is it "intervening" when they lock up murderers and rapists?

Or how about when they provide legal council to those who can't afford it who are charged with crimes that they may or may not have committed?

What about public schooling and libraries?

Get your head out of your ass.

[keso cheese]

But that's unAmerican commie/Nazi?RomanGreeko/Alien Lizard talk!!!

 

You don't even know what side you're on.

 

Theres a big difference in regulation and complete control.

[keso cheese]

It's NOT intervening. It's providing. Providing something that we the taxpayers desperately need and deserve.

Is it "intervening" when the government fixes potholes in the streets and highways?

How about when they rescue hurricane victims from their roofs and put them up in temporary housing?

Is it "intervening" when they lock up murderers and rapists?

What about public schooling and libraries?

Get your head out of your ass.

 

the only thing you listed there that wasn't a state issue was the hurricane rescues with are done alot by that states government (except for Katrina, which caused the most damage of any hurricane)

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

I realize this, thats why there does need to be regulation, and when insurance companies can be sold state to state it will create more competition, like car insurance, most people can pay for car insurance for that same reason.

 

Alot of people can't afford a car, much less car insurance.

That's why people get their cars jacked by the police on a daily basis.

You're still in favor of taxpaying citizens getting jacked for their lives just because they don't have enough money.

[DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER]

the only thing you listed there that wasn't a state issue was the hurricane rescues with are done alot by that states government (except for Katrina, which caused the most damage of any hurricane)

 

 

 

What's the difference?

It's still your taxdollars going to benefit YOU.

[keso cheese]

Alot of people can't afford a car, much less car insurance.

That's why people get their cars jacked by the police on a daily basis.

You're still in favor of taxpaying citizens getting jacked for their lives just because they don't have enough money.

 

So we should just give everyone a car and car insurance while we're at it?

No im not about taxpaying citizens getting jacked for their lives, it's just the fact that there are other options, if they find a good way for universal healthcare to work then fine, but it shouldnt be a rushed issue just to get it out there.

[shai]

Fuck a multi quote.

I'm not tripping on acid, So I don't feel like typing multiple responses to multiple topics in the same breath.

 

DAO, when I mentioned recently that I skip over a lot of what you have to say, it wasn't because I'm not interested...it's because I don't want to scroll through 15 posts of replies to read what you have to say.

 

No offense, but fuck it...I'm old, I just don't have that much time to process all this shit anymore.

And all this Obama/Joe Wilson shit is ridiculous. It's all politicians doing what they do, stop acting surprised by it.

[keso cheese]

What's the difference?

It's still your taxdollars going to benefit YOU.

 

Because I was saying the federal government was to big and that the states should take care of their citizens. I feel like this argument is getting no where

[TheoHuxtable..]

Conservatives are defending these corporations and health insurance companies against a public option in the name of "defending free-market capitalism" against "big government" & "socialism".

 

What many Republicans/conservatives fail to realize is that there exists a difference between capitalism & corporatism. I think a healthy "capitalist" society is a healthy balance of competition amongst businesses that allows the consumer to choose from a variety of high-quality products & services at lowered, reasonable prices. Corporatism on the other hand is anti-capitalist, because it thrives on eliminating as much competition as possible in order to increase profit, offering the consumer a degraded product or service at a higher price. Certain industry in this country reaches a tipping point in which healthy capitalism no longer exists, and corporatism takes over. And the health care industry is one of them (partly because they only compete with other companies per state, not nationwide). And that's when it's time the government steps in to keep the corporations in check. And that time is now.

[keso cheese]

Conservatives are defending these corporations and health insurance companies against a public option in the name of "defending free-market capitalism" against "big government" & "socialism".

 

What many Republicans/conservatives fail to realize is that there exists a difference between capitalism & corporatism. I think a healthy "capitalist" society is a healthy balance of competition amongst businesses that allows the consumer to choose from a variety of high-quality products & services at lowered, reasonable prices. Corporatism on the other hand is anti-capitalist, because it thrives on eliminating as much competition as possible in order to increase profit, offering the consumer a degraded product or service at a higher price. Certain industry in this country reaches a tipping point in which healthy capitalism no longer exists, and corporatism takes over. And the health care industry is one of them. And that's when it's time the government steps in to keep the corporations in check. And that time is now.

 

Thats why I was trying to say about the insurance companies being able to be sold state to state, with some government regulation so they don't get out of control. you put it in a lot better way than I did though

[lord_casek]

DAO, don't turn this into Channel Zero with the size 7 font and the dumb pictures.

 

That's all I'm asking.

[angelofdeath]

It's not "at the expence of someone else paying for it", it's at the expense of tax dollars that WE ALL pay, which basically means that we're paying for our own shit.

The same way as we pay for social security now.

It's almost the same as paying an insurance company, only you're not getting your eyes gouged out for so called "coverage" that's going to evaporate and toss you to the street the minute you get cancer.

 

And real talk, your misguided mindset is that of a selfish douchebag.

You people are fucking retarded.

 

i dont know why im going to try to converse with one of the board ass clowns... but... here goes.

 

so.

the case for single payer or universal healthcare is so that people who cant pay insurance can have insurance. the people who cant pay for insurance either dont pay taxes or get all or most of their money back when they file for income taxes. so they arent paying for it. taxes are nothing more than theft. if you dont pay taxes you go to jail. if you dont partake in a universal healthcare scheme by not paying taxes, you go to jail.

 

why need to call everyone a selfish douchebag. why doesnt everyone that wants universal healthcare, start the program with their own money? for as many people who want it, surely there is a market for it. im sure warren buffett and berkshire hathaway would gladly chip in a few billion to get it going. why do you have to mandate it and send people to jail if they dont pay for it? this is no way to behave. theft is theft, whether someone puts a gun to your head and robs you or if the government votes away your money. they have no claim on your property.

 

you make it sound as if social security is voluntary. social security is a bankrupt distributionist scheme that punishes savers and the productive members of society at the expense of paying for people who dont want to save for their retirement. just about anyone could invest the money the government robs from each pay check into other areas and make more money and be better off then letting uncle sam, the same people who said there were wmd's in iraq, 'invest' it. why do you feel the need to boss everyone around and tell them how to live their lives?

 

"you are an idiot, you need to have us provide healthcare for you!"

"you are an idiot, you need to have us take money from you, put into an 'account' that we'll never touch *wink and invest this for your retirement! you are incapable of doing any of this yourself you imbecile americans!"

[angelofdeath]

Universal healthcare does NOT go against the constitution you dumb fuck.

It has nothing at all to do with the constitution.

Healthcare didn't even exist in the 1770's.

And if you knew anything about our founding fathers and what they stood for, you'd know that they would have considered healthcare to be an inalienable right.

 

this is by far the most idiotic, stupid, childish, yet so outlandish its funny statement in this entire thread.

[angelofdeath]

Almost everybody in this country works for a living.

Most people in this country can't afford health insurance.

And most of the ones who can, get left hanging when they need the coverage that they payed for.

 

under the AOD administration, i'd allow a totally free market in healthcare and even crack heads would be paying for stitches and broken arms with cash.

 

people would only need health insurance for catastrophic events... just like you have home owners insurance and car insurance. you dont use your home owners insurance for a leaky faucet... just like you wouldnt be using your healthcare insurance for a broken finger or a check up, if we had a free market and we had much cheaper prices.

[angelofdeath]

Conservatives are defending these corporations and health insurance companies against a public option in the name of "defending free-market capitalism" against "big government" & "socialism".

 

What many Republicans/conservatives fail to realize is that there exists a difference between capitalism & corporatism. I think a healthy "capitalist" society is a healthy balance of competition amongst businesses that allows the consumer to choose from a variety of high-quality products & services at lowered, reasonable prices. Corporatism on the other hand is anti-capitalist, because it thrives on eliminating as much competition as possible in order to increase profit, offering the consumer a degraded product or service at a higher price. Certain industry in this country reaches a tipping point in which healthy capitalism no longer exists, and corporatism takes over. And the health care industry is one of them (partly because they only compete with other companies per state, not nationwide). And that's when it's time the government steps in to keep the corporations in check. And that time is now.

 

you are right about the corporatism. fascism is also a synonym for this. which is what i've been saying all along.

 

conservatives are WRONG to act as though the current system is a free market. dead wrong. when i denounce more government involvement in healthcare, im saying we should not stop at getting rid of more government involvement, im saying we should also get rid of current government involvement, but its not like you want this to happen. you are a marxist, so you will not stop until you have total 100% govt control for the benefit of the proletariat at the expense of the evil capitalists.

 

I dont think all the people protesting more govt involvement in healthcare think the current system is the best system ever, but i think the current system is probably slightly better than the obama system. the less government involved the better. when i say that im not defending a corporation or health insurance company... because ultimately i'd like all of their rolls reduced. big corps are as much of a foe to the free market as your are, theo. they hate it. they do NOT want free markets. they want regulations, mandates, subsidies, welfare, etc that benefit them. this is not a free market.

 

the corps and insurance corp's dont want the free market alternative ron paul and other freedom oriented people want either, they want a further governed fascist system along the same vein we have now.

[lord_casek]

Shit, I missed that one! What a way to wake up.

 

Healthcare is an inalienable right? So, we were born with the God given right to healthcare?

We must be the luckiest generation on the planet. Ever.

 

Ever.

 

Geez, I sure wish God would have granted my great grandmother that right. She was a great woman and I would have loved to have the time to have been able to know her better.

 

Lucky me, though.

[YouMad.GIF]

Conservatives are defending these corporations and health insurance companies against a public option in the name of "defending free-market capitalism" against "big government" & "socialism".

 

What many Republicans/conservatives fail to realize is that there exists a difference between capitalism & corporatism. I think a healthy "capitalist" society is a healthy balance of competition amongst businesses that allows the consumer to choose from a variety of high-quality products & services at lowered, reasonable prices. Corporatism on the other hand is anti-capitalist, because it thrives on eliminating as much competition as possible in order to increase profit, offering the consumer a degraded product or service at a higher price. Certain industry in this country reaches a tipping point in which healthy capitalism no longer exists, and corporatism takes over. And the health care industry is one of them (partly because they only compete with other companies per state, not nationwide). And that's when it's time the government steps in to keep the corporations in check. And that time is now.

 

 

 

That's really really REALLY true. Another facet of the capitalism argument is that a traditionally "capitalist" economy and the arguments and theories presented don't allow for the corporate entity. These theories and arguments are only apt undera system where people controll business (particularly a lot of small owned businesses) - these arguments and theories never factored in the "incorporation", which basically turns a large business into it's own "person". Instead of me being liabel and responsable for my own business, the corporation is only liabel to itself - only in circumstances of gross negligance or criminal wrongdoing do those in charge get held responsible. Taking the personal responsability out of running a business takes the main argument that the market will "balance and sort" itself out. Since nobody is responsable for anything but keeping their job and the bottom line, all fair play goes out the window. I'll show you the difference.

 

Say I have a cheesesteak stand. I work the same corner in south Philly for 10 years. People know me , I have several employees, but I am still the figurehead of this business. After 10 years or so I start trying to make more profit, so I slowly cut back on material to line my own pockets. Customers who have been with me for years start only getting a half filled roll, or no cheese in it even though they paid for it. Eventually I start using older meat , some people get really really sick, and someone dies. I am a sole proprietor, so I get sued, lose my business, property, and reputation. I get charged with criminaly negligent homicide, do 5 years in prison. When I get out I can't ever sell cheesesteaks in south Philly, much less walk down the street without getting called a faggot or getting my ass kicked by the old lady I made sick's young bouls. I have to move to Omaha and sell fake cheesesteaks for the rest of my life.

 

The personal responsibility aspect of the free market capitolism has ruined my life for cheating my customers and offering an unsafe product.

 

 

 

Now here's an example of a health insurance CORPORATION I actually worked for

 

so instead of cheesesteaks, I become president of HealthSouth. At first I offer a good product that helps people afford quality health care... But 10 years down the line I feel like making more profit so I start cutting corners. I routinely reject first claims no matter what they are, just to weed out potential payouts. I do tricky money management and hide surplusses. Once the business begins to suffer and the quality of my product drops, I start hiding the trouble we are in and understating losses to shareholders. Eventually a few old ladies die because they were waiting for my insanely long approval process for their necesarry care. People take notice and I fall under investigation. Since I am not personally responsible for the actions of the corporation, my name isn't drug through the mud quite nearly as much. I get some negative press for my shady dealings and am charged with some petty crime that is totally worth it compared to the insane profit margins me and my buddies pulled for years. The corporate name of HealthSouth takes the brunt of the backlash, I leave quietly and take another high paying job elsewhere. HealthSouth re-brands to HealthSpring and in a year or 2 nobody remembers anything.

 

 

See, corporations have the same rights as a person, and are actually treated by the courts and government as such. Traditional capitalist theories were never meant to deal with this, especially since there is almost no personal responsibility since the vast majority of the liabel falls on the corporate entity. It's because of the complete lack of liabel in corporations that government regulation is essential. Were not talking about mom & pops trading post or the deadwood saloon, were talking about financial giants who don't answer to any morality or resonsibility except the bottom line of their shareholders. Government regulation of corporations is essential to prevent monopoly and abuse. Corporations have little real liability - the cheesesteak capitalist did jail time for poisoning an old lady, the corporation just changes it's name and logo, but you can only fine them. You can't imprison a corporation for impropriety & malfeasance , just 1 or 2 guys at best who don't even hold full responsibility anyways because most of the time their actions were part of a bigger policy. You need government regulation of corporations. Traditional morality arguments of the benefits of free markets go out the window when you speak on corporations.

[angelofdeath]

i think the entire point you miss kim...

is that the corporate structure was given immunity from alot of things they should be held liable for, during the industrial revolution. if you go back and check things out, you'll basically find a bunch of cases that basically said... corporations are allowed to do what they want to a certain extent, as long as what they sell is for the 'greater good.' this was not some evil free marketeer or classical liberals supporting these policies, it was the progressives.

 

the bottom line is, you have a natural right to contract and to contract however you see fit. this includes any manner of fictitious entities including but not limited to trusts, a variety of corporations, limited liability corps, partnerships, etc. you have an inalienable right to this.

 

the mom and pops, including the mom and pop i helped run and was part owner of, was a corporation. fictitious entities are essential forms of contract and are essential for business. what needs to be done, is all those cases need to be reversed allowing companies to be held liable for various things.

this is how pollution can be solved. if corp A dumps waste into river A that therefore pollutes your land, the corporation should be held liable. this is very hard in today's climate, because property rights are not respected the way they should be.

 

the profit motive is what keeps people cooperating. to take it away and replace it with coercion is a mistake.

you realize that you are an evil capitalist if you draw a pay check and 'exploit' people and your employer by doing so, and are 'lining your pockets,' right?

 

once again, government is the real cause, not free associations of individuals.

governments give these associations the only power they have.

[lord_casek]

Up to $3,800 fine for failure get health insurance

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/08/3238135-up-to-3800-fine-for-failure-get-health-insurance

[El Mamerro]

Fuck a multi quote.

I'm not tripping on acid, So I don't feel like typing multiple responses to multiple topics in the same breath.

 

Well I don't feel like reading multiple posts from you, so unless you start using it I'm just gonna kindly delete all your posts on this thread. Otherwise you're free to mosey on somewhere else.

[TheoHuxtable..]

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

What happens when those same corporations that the government is supposed to "regulate" have lobbyist's in Washington that pay off the same people that are supposed to "regulate" them so absolutely nothing get's done?

 

One big circle jerk. Which is why I would rather a free market system where the people get to decide what is what.

 

I like to know where the criminals are. Instead of having to try to sift through them like dirt as I search for gold.

[YouMad.GIF]

under the AOD administration, i'd allow a totally free market in healthcare and even crack heads would be paying for stitches and broken arms with cash.

 

people would only need health insurance for catastrophic events... just like you have home owners insurance and car insurance. you dont use your home owners insurance for a leaky faucet... just like you wouldnt be using your healthcare insurance for a broken finger or a check up, if we had a free market and we had much cheaper prices.

 

 

 

So wait

you would repeal the law that prevents hospitals from turning away the indegant for the greater good of society? This goes against everything the modern medical community stands for, and harkens back to pre industrial revolution policy. Furthermore it is a real danger to society if the poorest can't get emergency treatment for infectious diseases. I also assume you think vaccienes for the poor should stop.

 

See, the problem with your extreme philosophy is that it isn't practical - you triumph ideals over morality, you sacrifice the general good and welfare in order to "keep things fair"

 

to some extent in order to advance as a society we need to make a little public chairity and sacrifice. Your extreme position IS logically sound - it looks good on paper and you can argue all day without slipping up or making any logical falicies... But the reality is that the answers to real life problems you have to give to stay in suit are not only morally reprehensible (yes forcing everyone to give up a fraction of their paycheck IS NOT as bad as a society that allows disease to fester in it's lowest class), but outright dangerous and irresponsible.

 

 

 

Like I always said, you are a master of the completely free market philosophical argument, and you do it well, but to say as a leader you would allow diseases to fester in order to follow your philosophy would be irrational and irresponsabe. It's like communism, the other end of the spectrum - it looks good on paper and you can argue it without being "wrong", but in the real world it fails to deliver.

[angelofdeath]

Why do you feel the need to try to act like every one will die if there isn't a law mandating care??

 

If the modern medical community exists to treat people who cannot afford treatment then they sure as he'll don't need a law telling them they have to treat peole, do they?

 

If a free market breaks out in medicine what makes you think morals dissappear? There is no law forbidding hospitals from engaging in charity is there?? Ive always heard Ron Paul say when he started out he started out at a privately fundedmission hospital, and there was no law mandating care, yet NO ONE was ever turned down. He also at his practice did not except medicare, and he also many times delivered babies with no charge to the patient that could not pay.

 

It's just a shame people think that the population cannot exist without order imposed by the Hobbesian leviathan to keep everyone in line.

[angelofdeath]

The right wing is so regressive sometimes I can't believe it. These archaic ideas have no place in modern society, which is why the middle is consistently shifting towards the left. Its 2009, we have a black president, it is officially the future as they said on comedy central. But alas the right is persistent. What would we do without AngelofDeath to argue with? What are you angelofdeath anyways? Paleoconservative? Libertarian? Populist? Constitutionalist? Anarchocapitalist? All of the above? None of the above? I know your not a neocon. Thank goodness for that. But nobody is really a neocon except the neocons themselves. They might use populist movements like the religious right but they are certainly not of them. All I know is you are a purist. You seem to think your ideology is the answer to everything which gets you into many untenable positions apparently. The danger of dogma is believing you have all the answers when life is infinitely more complex than that. That's why I'm an anarchist (left wing by the way). I don't presume to have all the answers.

 

My problem with anarcho communists (oxymoron?) is that the expel all their energy promoting statist policies and using government to force some sort of egalitarianism and abolition of property rights on everyone, instead of trying to abolish the real problem... The state.

 

Which is why I can't take a possible partial alliance with these people because they want to use govt force and coercion to push everyone around instead of rolling back the state.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Former President Jimmy Carter has come out to say what we knew all along: Racism behind much of the animosity towards Obama.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503689.html

 

 

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

JIMMY CARTER

 

Racism Blamed for Clamor Over Obama

 

Former president Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that he believes race is at the core of much of the opposition to President Obama.

 

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter told NBC in an interview. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"

 

Continued Carter: "And that racism inclination still exists. . . . It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

 

The 39th president also predicted that Obama will be able to "triumph over the racist attitude that is the basis for the negative environment that we see so vividly demonstrated in public affairs in recent days."

[YouMad.GIF]

Why do you feel the need to try to act like every one will die if there isn't a law mandating care??

 

If the modern medical community exists to treat people who cannot afford treatment then they sure as he'll don't need a law telling them they have to treat peole, do they?

because at the end of the day a hospital is a business. Sure some hospitals would freely admit anyone, but others would surely be more profit driven and chose to turn people away. Besides, you said that under your administration "crackheads would pay in cash" - not "hospitals would have a choice as to who they admit"

 

either way, what do you intend for a small community with only one hospital that happens to choose to not admit anyone without either insurance, a line of credit, or a stack of cash? Should a whole community really suffer an unchecked communicable disease because they were unlucky to live near a hospital with a ruthless program director?

 

 

If a free market breaks out in medicine what makes you think morals dissappear? There is no law forbidding hospitals from engaging in charity is there?? Ive always heard Ron Paul say when he started out he started out at a privately fundedmission hospital, and there was no law mandating care, yet NO ONE was ever turned down. He also at his practice did not except medicare, and he also many times delivered babies with no charge to the patient that could not pay.

 

It's just a shame people think that the population cannot exist without order imposed by the Hobbesian leviathan to keep everyone in line.

it's naive to think that people guided by profit will "do the right thing"

they prove time and time throughout the annals of history to be tempted by money and profit. Money is the root of all evil, and in the end a hospital is still a business. Just because Ron Paul worked in a good hospital doesn't mean that given the choice EVERY hospital would operate as such- in fact it's far more logical to see a sliding scale of quality depending on what you can afford... In dense areas this wouldn't be AS much a problem, unless more hospitals decided to become profit driven as opposed to mission hospitals and you were left with so few that in essense you couldn't get care at any of them. In fact wouldn't a free market dictate that the more efficient profit driven hospitals hospitals thrive?

 

 

Dude your theories aren't realistic for the exact same reasons communism doesn't work - they both operate under a complete assumption that people will behave with morality an complete civic responsibility, while history proves time and time again that the inherant evil, or at least random nature of humanity doesn't allow these extreme philosophies to work. Like I said I completely respect your opinion and argument, but citing the last 6000 years of modern historical record, it's pretty fuckin clear you ideology is completely impractical and it's success is impossible as long as human nature remains at least somewhat irrational.