Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US health care vote

ObamaCare 2010

  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#41 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:02 PM

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.
What facts could possibly justify a comment as thoroughly asinine and irresponsible as "If we still have elections in this country"?

A lot of people think our elections are basically bought. Although not quite as blatantly as the last votes for the health bill.

Throw in gerrymandering and pandering to the special interests, and our elections are not nearly so democratic as you seem to think they are.

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 04:03 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#42 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:05 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

This may sound harsh, and if so I apologize in advance. But nobody promised anyone a rose garden. Nobody promised that life is fair. Nobody promised these things.

Yes it is a shame that some are born handicapped and can't take care of themselves. In that situation it falls to that person's family to take care of them...And if something happens to that person's family...Again, it is going to sound harsh...but it just isn't my problem. And, IMO, it really isn't society's problem.

I never said that giving healthcare to those who can't work to get it it made everything fair. But having a child with a handicap is really just a matter of (bad) luck. There are tons and tons of things out there that are spontaneous, and if a family can't afford to give treatment, then it prevents that child from possible being a brilliant contributing member of society (or on the otherhand, being the next notorious war criminal). No one should be denied the opportunity to thrive because the family they were born into was too poor to help them out.

And if that's a utopian view of how I feel the world should work, then I won't apologise for it....because to have one "class" of society shrugs their shoulders and goes "not my problem" while they take money in from that exact same "lower class" makes us no better then a caste based society where it's okay to openly discriminate people purely based on their birth. The United States is better then that.

Edited by JadziaDax, 22 March 2010 - 04:06 PM.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#43 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:12 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

nobody is "getting" anything.

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.


Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.

Why should I be held to a different standard than others?

So immigration reform automatically means pure amnesty outside of a series of steps to earn citizenship?

Quote

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.

Yes. What the rightwing talkers I heard today seemed to forget was the bolded part. And not all 26 year olds who will be on their parents' insurance are low- and middle-income. Yet the local conservative talk jock was having conniptions at the thought of those lazy kids lying around while they "were added to the rolls."

My point is that, from what I've heard, the right is incoherent in its opposition to this bill. It's incoherent because it's trying to attack a straw man: single-payer, government-provided insurance, which is not provided by this reform. It's incoherent because, as cade points out, this IS a conservative health-insurance reform package--with its roots in the old Eisenhower-Nixon brand of Republicanism. A liberal, FDR approach would be government-provided insurance. That's not happening. Yet, the complaints seem to be straight out of the old "I don't wanna support those lazy bums" playbook. Again--nothing in this bill supports the kind of class resentment the rightwing talkers I heard today are trying to stir up.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#44 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:14 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

View PostCertifiably Cait, on Mar 22 2010, 03:45 PM, said:

View Postcade, on Mar 22 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Make no mistake, this is not a liberal bill. It's essentially Nixon's plan, RomneyCare and what the Republicans proposed under Clinton--a strengthening of the for-greed health care system. This is a right-wing bill, and the corporate mandate is a Republican idea:

Agreed!  Which is exactly why I don't understand where the real rage against this bill comes from.  Everything I've reads has commented on this being the Nixon version, and the Romney version in Mass.  If Republicans at one time or another backed this kind of Reform what's so objectionable now?  

I also don't see why Democrats are so proud of themselves, but hey, this might kick the can down the road to more improvements at a later date.

Yep yep yep.

Talk radio was interesting today. I listened to a tiny bit of a local conservative and flipped over to Limbaugh for two seconds, which was all I could bear.

The local guy was ranting about people being "added to the rolls." I thought, "huh? What rolls." I swear, he was OUTRAGED about all the people who were going to get free health care at everyone else's expense--including those 26 year-olds who could now be covered on their parents' policies. Everyone is a lazy bum under Obamacare! Blah blah blah.

He seemed oblivious to the reality that, with the exception of a modest expansion of Medicaid, in large part to offset the burdens imposed by mandating that citizens BUY insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies, nobody is "getting" anything. Those 26 year old's parents get to BUY insurance that will cover their kids up until that age.

It's like the rightwing was so set to rail against single-payer, government-provided insurance that this is all they can do now--even though what has happened bears no resemblance to what they're outraged about. It would be funny if so many people weren't regularly misinformed by talk radio.

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

I expected as much, but I still don't understand the absolute rage.  It's like people left ideological differences on the road side, then took a left turn into the twilight zone.  People are literally bouncing off the walls with rage, and yet the Bill isn't Liberal. let alone socialist,  at all.  

This isn't the first time some governmental agency has told us we have to purchase some kind of insurance.  Try and drive in California without Insurance.  OH, that's right, you can't.   You have to have Insurance.  I don't remember screams about socialism then in California?  Does anyone remember that being tied to socialism?

Sure, people can disagree with all of this, even vehemently, but where is this explosive rage come from?  It sounds deranged, and while I've never been a registered Republican, I've voted Republican many times, but now, I'm just downright afraid to elect a Republican.  Do they even realize how they act and sound to a moderate?  These people are threatening the peace.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#45 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:26 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

nobody is "getting" anything.

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.


Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.

Why should I be held to a different standard than others?

Set whatever standard for yourself you want.


Quote

So immigration reform automatically means pure amnesty outside of a series of steps to earn citizenship?

Last time around the bill was basically amnesty, with the "steps to earn citizenship" a sham to allow supporters of the bill to try to claim they weren't supporting amnesty. Pretty much no one was fooled except the people who cheaply say opponents of the bill are anti-immigrant, conveniently leaving out the part about the immigrants in question being ILLEGAL. What do we do to people who break laws in this country, hmm? Oh, right if they're banksters we give them bailouts, and if they're illegal immigrants we let them stay in the country free of meaningful penalty for breaking the law. Apparently, the law in our country is worth crap, at least if you're in certain favored groups.


Quote

Quote

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.

Yes.

Okay, so whatever your particular objection, if you get subsidies, you're getting *something*, contrary to your previous assertion.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#46 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 04:51 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.
What facts could possibly justify a comment as thoroughly asinine and irresponsible as "If we still have elections in this country"?

A lot of people think our elections are basically bought. Although not quite as blatantly as the last votes for the health bill.

Throw in gerrymandering and pandering to the special interests, and our elections are not nearly so democratic as you seem to think they are.


THIS.

Hey Palisade, do you listen to George Carlin? It sounds pretty much like what he said-and I agree with Carlin.  BTW-I'm one of those people who thinks elections are largely bought.  See the line under my sig pic-and read post 36 of this thread.

:suspect:

Edited by Analog Kid, 22 March 2010 - 04:52 PM.

Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#47 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:06 PM

^ No, I don't listen to Carlin. But watching our government politicians in action, it's painfully obvious whom they serve.

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 05:07 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#48 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:12 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

^ No, I don't listen to Carlin. But watching our government politicians in action, it's painfully obvious whom they serve.

And as a perfect example to back up Palisade, let me offer two words.

BIG. TOBACCO.

'Nuff said.

:angry:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#49 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:29 PM

Huh...I just thought about an interesting irony, insofar as my last post...

How many of these same politicians who worked for/against this health care plan also were given money by Big Tobacco™ at some point? :suspect:

Some of you may scoff and say, "Saul, you're retarded!! How can people who SUPPORT health care be ALSO supporters of Big Tobacco??"

Simple. There MAY be a VERY few honest politicians (boy, is THAT a dichotomy), but anyone who thinks there aren't those who DO play both sides of the fence is INCREDIBLY naive.

Remember what I've said MANY times on this board-

PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF ANYTHING.

:suspect: :suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

(edited to make spelling correction)

Edited by Analog Kid, 22 March 2010 - 05:33 PM.

Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#50 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:38 PM

^And two mortal enemies might use the services of the same prostitute.  She doesn't care how they feel about each other, so long as she gets paid.

Edited by Nick, 22 March 2010 - 05:38 PM.


#51 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:38 PM

View PostJadziaDax, on Mar 22 2010, 05:05 PM, said:

I never said that giving healthcare to those who can't work to get it it made everything fair.

fair enough. I apologize if I was putting words into your mouth.


Quote

No one should be denied the opportunity to thrive because the family they were born into was too poor to help them out.

If a family is too poor to be able to support a child, then they shouldn't have a child til they can afford it. As for those born with diabilities who require more care...IMO, that should be the responsibility of the parents. Yes it does suck for them, but it is ultimately up to them.

Other groups of people should not be taxed more to help pay for that child. That just isn't right, or fair, to that group. But as we've already established...life rarely is fair.

Now if to pay for this a tax was imposed on everyone. Meaning everyone pays the same. I would have less of a problem with that. Yeah, it's a burden, but as we've established...at times life just sucks. But to just target one group because they are more successful and can afford it...that just isn't right to me.

Also, anyone who knows me knows I don't like being told what to do. So my response to the Government telling me I have to have this or that, or else pay them...Well my response to that would definately violate board GL's and would probably fall into the "treason" category.

Quote

And if that's a utopian view of how I feel the world should work, then I won't apologise for it....because to have one "class" of society shrugs their shoulders and goes "not my problem" while they take money in from that exact same "lower class" makes us no better then a caste based society where it's okay to openly discriminate people purely based on their birth. The United States is better then that.

I disagree. I don't think we are anywhere near a caste based system.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#52 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 05:40 PM

View PostNick, on Mar 22 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

^And two mortal enemies might use the services of the same prostitute.  She doesn't care how they feel about each other, so long as she gets paid.

(Saul gives Nick a kewpie doll)

:welldone:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#53 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 06:06 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving.

"You don't have to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive" sounds reasonable until you take into consideration just how many people wouldn't be able to make a living without driving.  You could say, "then let those people move to a place with excellent mass transit" but then again, you could also say to people who don't want to buy health insurance, "move to a place where you don't have to do that."  People are mandated to pay into social security, as well, of course.  It comes right out of our paychecks.  That's insurance, of a sort.  And there are other examples.

So, to me, this is a distinction without a difference.

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

I haven't commented on it because I've been trying to pretend this didn't happen...And so far, it's not helping really.

I don't agree with taxing one group of people more, to pay for those who don't have health care. It smacks of punishing those who succeeded, just because they succeeded.

But you avail yourself of a lower tax bracket, don't you?  By this logic, you should eschew your lower taxes because by paying less, you're throwing in with those who champion the idea of progressive taxes.  

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:03 PM, said:

So in order to avoid paying maybe a few thousand dollars more in taxes, you'd give up probably tens of thousands of dollars in income?

If I could live a comfortable lifestyle below that threshold...then YES I WOULD.

You would give up tens of thousands to avoid paying a couple of thousand?  Really?  

Quote

Why should those who have made it be taxed more, punished essentially for being successful?

It's the cost of doing business in a civilized society.  There are places in the word where this is not the case, of course.  It goes without saying that none of us would want to live in them.  

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 04:07 PM, said:

Well since Congress has now established the precedent of being able to Order the American People to do something:

Congress is the law-making body in this country, right?  Since when have they NOT been able to "order the American people to do something?"  

Quote

Namely Get Health care or else pay a fine.

One of thousands of things the law mandates us to do or else get fined.  Don't piss in the street -- or get fined.  Don't evade your taxes -- or get fined, and possibly go to prison.  Etc etc.

ETA: it's worth noting (since there has been much discussion in OT of PhRMA and the role of drug-makers) that Sen. Grassley's Physician Payment Sunshine Act (which I support wholeheartedly) was contained in this bill and will therefore be signed into law tomorrow.  Which will make my life rather interesting ...

Edited by BklnScott, 22 March 2010 - 06:11 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#54 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 06:20 PM

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 02:41 PM, said:

nobody is "getting" anything.

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.


Quote

Oh, and Limbaugh was talking about how next the Democrats will give amnesty to all illegal aliens because they will need the Mexican vote now--"IF we still have elections in this country. And no I'm not kidding, folks." It was pitiful. Rush has nowhere to go except down a slippery slope. Again, the trouble is that I'm sure he's taking a lot of people along with him.

Obama has already said he wants to revive the immigration 'reform' bill. That bill was basically amnesty.

You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.

Why should I be held to a different standard than others?

Set whatever standard for yourself you want.


Quote

So immigration reform automatically means pure amnesty outside of a series of steps to earn citizenship?

Last time around the bill was basically amnesty, with the "steps to earn citizenship" a sham to allow supporters of the bill to try to claim they weren't supporting amnesty. Pretty much no one was fooled except the people who cheaply say opponents of the bill are anti-immigrant, conveniently leaving out the part about the immigrants in question being ILLEGAL. What do we do to people who break laws in this country, hmm? Oh, right if they're banksters we give them bailouts, and if they're illegal immigrants we let them stay in the country free of meaningful penalty for breaking the law. Apparently, the law in our country is worth crap, at least if you're in certain favored groups.


Quote

Quote

Actually, low- and middle-income people get subsidies to buy insurance with.

Yes.

Okay, so whatever your particular objection, if you get subsidies, you're getting *something*, contrary to your previous assertion.

You know, I really don't have time to get dragged into this chop-up-one's-remarks-out-of-context-to-play-gotcha game and I'm not interested. Neither am I interested in sticking around to be chastised ("You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.") by someone I've given a wide berth to. In other words, I don't come at you with snotty remarks like that.

I have no idea what I was thinking when I jumped back in the pool here....It's pointless. And I have work to do.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#55 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 06:59 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on Mar 22 2010, 02:59 PM, said:

View PostNick, on Mar 22 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

Strictly speaking, it isn't actually a "mandate" per se.  You don't go to jail by not getting health insurance, it's just a tax penalty.  So I don't think the Supes can really strike it down.
What?  So, only if it's a criminal penalty can it be challenged?

I think not.
Suppose that instead of creating this tax penalty, the bill had instituted an across-the-board income tax increase combined with a tax credit equal to the increase for those who have health insurance. That would be legal, right? The government offers all sorts of tax credits to encourage people to buy homes, create jobs, etc., etc. Functionally, how is this "mandate" any different?

In any event, the Supreme Court has long interpreted Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce very broadly. Even a citizen who is not involved in commerce himself can have his activity regulated, provided that the ultimate goal of said regulation is to affect interstate commerce. See Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in which a farmer who was growing wheat solely for personal use was found to be subject to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, even though his only contribution to interstate commerce was that he was not buying wheat in the marketplace.

The same precedent was used in 2005 to uphold the federal ban on marijuana use, even when it is used solely within a single state for medicinal purposes. Said the court: "Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial,' in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

View PostLord of the Sword, on Mar 22 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

View PostJadziaDax, on Mar 22 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Isn't it the responsible thing to do to help people who can't help themselves?

Why is it right to blame people who did nothing wrong in their life except 1) be born with a handicap or 2) not be born into a family of privilege. The only way to be sucessful, is to have someone take a chance on you (or be born into a family of privilege who can throw money at you), and if someone isn't willing to give you that chance in the first place, it's quite a mean thing to say they never even tried.
This may sound harsh, and if so I apologize in advance. But nobody promised anyone a rose garden. Nobody promised that life is fair. Nobody promised these things.
But couldn't someone use the exact same reasoning to argue exactly the opposite? Nobody said that life was fair, and if you happen to make more money and the government needs some of it to help the less fortunate, those are the breaks.

Yes, life is always going to be unfair. But I'd rather it be unfair in the "rich businessman pays two thousand dollars more in taxes" sense than the "poor mother lacks health insurance, so she dies of breast cancer, leaving her child an orphan and her family bankrupt" sense.

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

View PostDev F, on Mar 22 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

What facts could possibly justify a comment as thoroughly asinine and irresponsible as "If we still have elections in this country"?
A lot of people think our elections are basically bought. Although not quite as blatantly as the last votes for the health bill.

Throw in gerrymandering and pandering to the special interests, and our elections are not nearly so democratic as you seem to think they are.
I didn't say one word about how democratic I thought our elections were. I said that we still have them. And so we do.

I assume your point is that Rush didn't really mean the words that he said (no matter that he came right out and said "I'm not kidding, folks"), but was instead just trying to convey how unfair our electoral system can be. But that's exactly what makes him and the other right-wing media starts so irresponsible: because they frame every comment in the most hysterical, inflammatory terms -- even though they know that a substantial number of their listeners are amped up and terrified and quite willing to believe that such comments are literally true.

Edited by Dev F, 22 March 2010 - 07:00 PM.


#56 tallulah

tallulah
  • Islander
  • 574 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 06:59 PM

I have tried to wade through the various bits of info out there, and I am sort of in the middle.  Some parts of the bill seem to be OK in my view; others, not so much.  I agree a perfect bill is something elusive, especially in the current political climate.  And I really don't understand the crazy rage that is coming out from various people out there (Cait said it better above).  I guess I just wish we had a more functional government on all sides, a government that actually did put the people's best interest in the forefront.  Dream on, I know!

T.


edit because I misspelled Cait's name. Sorry!

Edited by tallulah, 22 March 2010 - 08:01 PM.

Three L's and an H.
--The Doctor

Dinner and bondage.  Works for me.
--Margaret, Dr. Who, though, really, it could be anyone

When nice girls learn to respect themselves, they'll always finish first.
--Marin, Men in Trees

#57 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:23 PM

View PostSpectacles, on Mar 22 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

I have no idea what I was thinking when I jumped back in the pool here....It's pointless. And I have work to do.

It was nice to see you, and discuss this with you while it lasted.  :)  Thanks for braving it once again.  I know you kick yourself each time, but know that some of us really like it when you do join in.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#58 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 09:28 PM

View PostBklnScott, on Mar 22 2010, 05:06 PM, said:

View PostPalisade, on Mar 22 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

^ You don't have to buy auto insurance. You only have to buy auto insurance if you want the privilege of driving.

"You don't have to buy auto insurance if you choose not to drive" sounds reasonable until you take into consideration just how many people wouldn't be able to make a living without driving.  You could say, "then let those people move to a place with excellent mass transit" but then again, you could also say to people who don't want to buy health insurance, "move to a place where you don't have to do that."  People are mandated to pay into social security, as well, of course.  It comes right out of our paychecks.  That's insurance, of a sort.  And there are other examples.

So, to me, this is a distinction without a difference.

You're not mandated to pay into Social Security either. Just like the income tax, you only pay if you have a job.

Regarding car insurance, you can set things up so you live near a co-worker and pay them gas money to take you to work. Convenient? Hardly, but still doable. Alternatively, just about anywhere you can get an apartment next to a fast food joint or grocery store and work there. You'll be working a minimum-wage job, but in that case a car is not needed, only desirable. And if you decide you want the privilege of driving, you're required only to pay insurance to  damage you may inflict on others and their property, not damage you may inflict on yourself.

In contrast, this health care fine collected by the IRS seems like a tax just for living in the U.S. ETA: I guess you could argue that the "hardship exemption" gives you a way to live in the U.S. and not be subject to the mandate, but still I wonder if it's constitutional for the government to require everyone living in the U.S. not facing a hardship to either enter into a private contract they don't want to enter into or pay the government a fine.


Spectacles said:

You know, I really don't have time to get dragged into this chop-up-one's-remarks-out-of-context-to-play-gotcha game and I'm not interested. Neither am I interested in sticking around to be chastised ("You might want to get your facts in order before casting aspersions.") by someone I've given a wide berth to. In other words, I don't come at you with snotty remarks like that.
You say that as if you don't remember when we've discussed the issue of health insurance subsidies before. We have so I know that you know that people who are getting subsidies are getting freebies from this health care bill. Assuming the health care bill is actually revenue neutral (hah!), the money to pay for the subsidies is being collected as new tax revenue from someone else and transferred to the person receiving the subsidies. Yet you come into this thread and post in a huff as if that's not what's happening. One can argue whether these transfer payments are a good thing or a bad thing, but they are in the bill.


Dev F said:

I didn't say one word about how democratic I thought our elections were. I said that we still have them. And so we do.
I assume your point is that Rush didn't really mean the words that he said (no matter that he came right out and said "I'm not kidding, folks"), but was instead just trying to convey how unfair our electoral system can be. But that's exactly what makes him and the other right-wing media starts so irresponsible: because they frame every comment in the most hysterical, inflammatory terms -- even though they know that a substantial number of their listeners are amped up and terrified and quite willing to believe that such comments are literally true.
I have no idea what Rush did or didn't mean since even if I wished to listen to talk radio, I couldn't do so because I'm at work when it's on. Personally, I think the idea that TBTB would do away with elections is silly. Why would they? The system serves the entrenched powers well, and having elections lets the populace think that come next election they can just vote the bums out and get change. Thus, the elections help keep the masses in line and cast a veneer of respectability over a thoroughly rotten system. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whose statement is more inflammatory --  mine or Rush's.

Edited by Palisade, 22 March 2010 - 10:08 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:03 PM

So today I had some experiences as an uninsured American.  I've been putting off a certain appointment.   But today I went.  They cut me a break because I don't have insurance.  Turns out I need antibiotics.  Fine.  I go to a place (hint it's a big place) and I give them the prescription.  Normally it would be about $60.  For me, without insurance, it's about 10.

Now, some people will say "gee what a nice thing" and there is certainly some of that in there.

But NO one other than a completely pro bono type of outfit is going to sell ANYTHING at a price that does not get them a nice PROFIT.  So...while there was some kindness there, the other thing is that these people have HUGE enough profit margins that can be given large haircuts while still leaving a healthy profit.

But, I'm glad I got my meds.

Lil
Posted Image

#60 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 March 2010 - 10:05 PM

^ For me with insurance, that $60 drug would have been $15.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ObamaCare, 2010

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users