More anti-"Obamacare" right-wing protests

[Saturos]

Yahoo.com

Rising opposition to President Obama's healthcare proposals may be morphing into something broader and deeper: an anti-Obama movement that could jeopardize the president's political standing, damage the Democratic Party, and give the Republicans new life.

Now, GOP strategists say that relentless attacks on Obama, even without positive alternatives, have been enough to give conservatives some traction and pull down the president's job-approval ratings.

 

[David.Seth2]

I swear its gonna be Republican extremists who destroy this country

 

[Saturos]

It sounds like to me the Republicans want America to have only a single party, which translates to authoritarian rule. This cannot be allowed to happen, regardless if the Democrat's healthcare proposal is ridiculous or not. I would be just as disturbed if it was the other way around.

We really need at least 2 more parties in the US. Both sides have split down the middle into Republican liberal/conservative Democrat liberal/conservative. There needs to be more balance.

What's more, protesting the Democratic party just for the sake of protesting without bringing alternatives to the table is just plain retarded.

Just goes to show how effective Republican brainwashing has been.

 

[David.Seth2]

.... protesting the Democratic party just for the sake of protesting without bringing alternatives to the table is just plain retarded.

Thank you. I don't mind Republican political viewpoints so much, its their opposition to anything that comes from the Democratic party that annoys me. Many Reps agree that something needs to be done about health care/uninsured/insurance companies, but most of the time they don't offer any ideas. All they do is bitch and moan about Obamacare without proposing their own ideas.

What especially annoys me about this debate is that many Republicans are from the Religious Right (aka Christians). And, if they were to know what is actually written in the Bible, they would know that Jesus often said to take care of the poor and sick:

Matthew 5:42 “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

Luke 3:11 “John answered, ‘the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’"

Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

Matthew 25:35-40 (New International Version)
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Yet they moan and bitch about death panels and abortions and socialism and don't give a rats ass about the 21+ million people living in America without health care. Ef these people. Sure, Obamacare may very well be the wrong way to go about it, but at least hes trying to do something.

/rant

 

[Xevrex]

This just goes to show you that Republicans can hold a grudge. Will they ever not be butthurt that they lost the election?

 

[Robbo]

Can someone tell me what everyones problem with a state run health care system is over there.

So far I've only found two points against it: It might cost too much when the US is in a deficit , and that it could put some of the private health care companies out of business.

Considering the scale of the problem I would have thought that these two drawbacks were worth conceding for the benefits.... oh and of course Obama is Hitler :S

 

[Shakermaker]

Can someone tell me what everyones problem with a state run health care system is over there.

So far I've only found two points against it: It might cost too much when the US is in a deficit , and that it could put some of the private health care companies out of business.

Considering the scale of the problem I would have thought that these two drawbacks were worth conceding for the benefits.... oh and of course Obama is Hitler :S

A couple of days ago I saw a news item on CNN. It was about a health clinic in Louisiana. The clinic was ran by volunteers and helped people that didn't have enough money for health insurance. To me it seemed logical that the patients would be people in favor of universal health care. But to my surprise they weren't. The reasons they gave for being against it were basically all the things the Republicans have used in their propaganda campaign. Health panels will decide on life or death and kill everyone that isn't worth it just like they do in Europe (pronounced Urp btw). The system will lead to long waiting lines and lower quality of care. "And state ran health care will never give me the level of service I enjoy here." These people seem to have forgotten the fact that they were tended to by volunteers because in the current system they didn't get any care at all. It is amazing how big the power of media has become in the US. The Republicans have effectively shifted blame from the real culprits (i.e. themselves) onto Obama and the Democrats. And the GOP, funded in this case by pharmaceutical and commercial health care lobbyists, gets away with it because of the stupidity of the people. It is the biggest scam in history.

 

[jimbo118]

Hmm your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Robbo]

A couple of days ago I saw a news item on CNN. It was about a health clinic in Louisiana. The clinic was ran by volunteers and helped people that didn't have enough money for health insurance. To me it seemed logical that the patients would be people in favor of universal health care. But to my surprise they weren't. The reasons they gave for being against it were basically all the things the Republicans have used in their propaganda campaign. Health panels will decide on life or death and kill everyone that isn't worth it just like they do in Europe (pronounced Urp btw). The system will lead to long waiting lines and lower quality of care. "And state ran health care will never give me the level of service I enjoy here." These people seem to have forgotten the fact that they were tended to by volunteers because in the current system they didn't get any care at all. It is amazing how big the power of media has become in the US. The Republicans have effectively shifted blame from the real culprits (i.e. themselves) onto Obama and the Democrats. And the GOP, funded in this case by pharmaceutical and commercial health care lobbyists, gets away with it because of the stupidity of the people. It is the biggest scam in history.

ohh so what your saying is that the US needs to become an Obama led communist state where the "simple" people are given no power to influence important decisions!!

But really I would have thought that if your standing in line to get treated by a volunteer who would usually be in Africa then you would support ANY kind of change.

 

[<RJMC>]

obama should increase the cost of healthcare so if people bitch about it he will just tell them "well you didnt want it for free so I am now giving you the opossite bitches!"

 

[lord_raken]

First of all the proposed changes to NOT include an universal health-care plan. Its only increased regulations and MAYBE a public option.

Secondly there are several economic problems.
-Higher regulations will drive prices of health-care up and providers will leave the industry or cut back on the number of people they cover.
- Taxes will increase substantially. This will hurt the income of many households who are already feeling the economic squeeze.
- There is always a trade off. When government gets involved the usual trade off is decreased efficiency and productivity.

Something needs to be done, but it must be done very carefully with regard to the principles of a free market economy. If not... then reform could do more damage that it helps.

 

[Saturos]

First of all the proposed changes to NOT include an universal health-care plan. Its only increased regulations and MAYBE a public option.

Secondly there are several economic problems.
-Higher regulations will drive prices of health-care up and providers will leave the industry or cut back on the number of people they cover.
- Taxes will increase substantially. This will hurt the income of many households who are already feeling the economic squeeze.
- There is always a trade off. When government gets involved the usual trade off is decreased efficiency and productivity.

Something needs to be done, but it must be done very carefully with regard to the principles of a free market economy. If not... then reform could do more damage that it helps.

/inb4 Stern pointing out, "alarmist republican propaganda".

There might be some truth to this though. I personally think it would be better to harass insurance companies with a bill to provide much much better coverage than for the feds to take the reins completely. Our bloated government has too much on it's plate already.

 

[jverne]

/inb4 Stern pointing out, "alarmist republican propaganda".

There might be some truth to this though. I personally think it would be better to harass insurance companies with a bill to provide much much better coverage than for the feds to take the reins completely. Our bloated government has too much on it's plate already.

hey, who the **** stole my idea!?!?

 

[Tyguy]

Hmm your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

epic simpsons quote is epic

 

[jimbo118]

Outstanding.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I'm pretty perplexed at some of those Americans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html

I admit i haven't been following it closely. Does it come down to this:
Some Americans don't want their tax dollars paying for poor peoples medical services?

 

[David.Seth2]

I admit i haven't been following it closely. Does it come down to this:
Some Americans don't want their tax dollars paying for poor peoples medical services?

More or less. Its funny, one president tries to change healthcare so everyone may be covered, and all the loony conservatives come out and protest. But the previous president sent us to war with a country on false pretenses and because of that, to date, 4,346 Americans have lost their lives (as well as 317 from allied forces and almost 100,000 Iraqis). Yet these same conservatives sat on their fat asses and thought that questioning the (then) president was unpatriotic. Idiots. Truth be told, most of these people think that Obama is fascist, socialist, communist, and/or Nazi.

 

[CptStern]

I'm pretty perplexed at some of those Americans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html

I admit i haven't been following it closely. Does it come down to this:
Some Americans don't want their tax dollars paying for poor peoples medical services?

no, they already do:

Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government

the issue is that they are stupid and guilible and believe things like death panels and big brother government implanting them with microchips and other diabolical plans:

http://www.rense.com/general87/holdren.htm

 

[jimbo118]

What's so wrong about providing public healthcare for many Americans? In France, Germany etc the taxes are relatively high and a large proportion of that tax goes to the health system. They have some of the best healthcare in Europe.

When times were good here in Ireland(Tiger years), virtually every cent of income tax was going to our health system(even though it still is shitty).

 

[lord_raken]

Public health care is expensive and can trash the economy. This results in lower incomes, which lead to less tax revenue, which leads to less money for government programs (including health care) which leads to fewer people getting health care, which results in lower productivity and lower income.
It can create a negative feedback loop that does long term damage to the overall well being of the country. There is a reason why America is the most powerful economy in the world. There is a reason why more socialist economies are having trouble right now with growth. The current crisis in America is just a speed bump to a Market system. Those who adapt will succeed and those who don't will fail, and we will come out on the other side just as strong if not stronger.... unless we go socialist.... then we start the long slippery slide to subserviance to the next capitalistic power.

 

[CptStern]

Public health care is expensive and can trash the economy.

you know this because you've experienced it firsthand? please cite your example plus sources

This results in lower incomes

how? how would public healthcare lower incomes? the government pays for it, not individual businesses, if anything the exact opposite is true: since the government is paying for their healthcare and NOT their employer, their income will RISE not lower (money that would go to pay for healthcare would igo back into the employees pocket

, which lead to less tax revenue,

which wouldnt happen because neither of your previous conditions are anywhere near being true

which leads to less money for government programs (including health care)

right, yet there's always money to fight wars overseas that have nothing to do with you

which leads to fewer people getting health care, which results in lower productivity and lower income.

as opposed to the 43 million americans who are currently underinsured. ... I think the opposite is true: since 43 million people all of the sudden have their healthcare provided for they can go back to being productive

It can create a negative feedback loop that does long term damage to the overall well being of the country.

speculative drivel based on absolutely nothing

There is a reason why America is the most powerful economy in the world.

ya on the backs of it's employees ..anyways your rhetoric is nonsensical and silly. ..as if the lack of government funded healthcare led to your economy being the "most powerful in the world"

There is a reason why more socialist economies are having trouble right now with growth.

lol, canada's minister of finance declared the recession over recently and besides the auto industry we're done pretty well ...can the same be said about the US?

The current crisis in America is just a speed bump to a Market system. Those who adapt will succeed and those who don't will fail, and we will come out on the other side just as strong if not stronger....

meaningless drivel completely unrelated to healthcare or healthcare reform; just nonsense conservatives say to themselves in their idiotic bid to dismiss "sociialism"

really this is why the rest of the world is laughing at the US; people like you who push bullshit as if it's truth

unless we go socialist.... then we start the long slippery slide to subserviance to the next capitalistic power.

fear mongering drivel copy pasted from the mouths of your idiotic politicians

 

[CptStern]

this is a good essay as to why some people might not like Obama and his healthcare reform:

Back when Barack Obama began his extraordinary quest for the presidency, lots of conservatives -- particularly those prone to wake screaming in the night from visions of Madam President Hillary Clinton -- just couldn't say enough nice things about him. What attracted them most was not his intellect or political skill: It was the way he handled race. Right-wing stalwart William Bennett may have best summed up the feeling when he gushed that Obama "never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton."

Let's be absolutely clear -- many people who dislike the president or his agenda are perfectly comfortable with his race. After all, just under 60 million Americans voted for John McCain, and they did so for many reasons. But it's becoming clear that the presence of a black man in the Oval Office, combined with the increasingly diverse makeup of the American public -- most particularly the growing number of Latinos -- is causing some to not only see terrible threats in things they cared very little about a year ago. It's also causing them to cast aside any pretense of commitment to the basic legitimacy of the American system as it exists today. The post-racial honeymoon couldn't last, of course.

.......

The current fight over health-care reform is the arena in which this trend is becoming evident, but the details of that issue are not really motivating the most intense opponents. When you show up at a town hall debate and yell that reform represents "socialized medicine," you just don't know much about socialism (or health care, for that matter). But when you come to that town hall and shout "I want my America back!" through tears, you aren't talking about health care at all.


It is plain that a great many people simply do not believe Barack Obama legitimately occupies the office of president of the United States. Some -- the "birthers" -- think he was really born in Kenya, and benefited from an elaborate conspiracy to falsify documents demonstrating otherwise -- in other words, not American at all. Some have reacted to policies they oppose by reviving a neo-Confederate claim that states don't have to abide by laws passed by the federal government if they don't like them. These are the "tenthers," who believe that the tenth amendment makes virtually everything the federal government does unconstitutional, from Medicare to building interstate highways to regulating airlines. So long as the wrong man's in the White House, that is.



What all of this has in common is a rejection of the mores of American democracy. There were some things that people on the left and right used to agree on. You might not like it if Congress passes the president's agenda, but the law is the law. You might not like the president himself, but you're not going to make a big stink about it when he does things like pardon turkeys on Thanksgiving or tell kids to study hard and stay in school. You might not want to vote for what the president is arguing for, but if you're a member of Congress you don't heckle him like you're a drunken frat boy in a comedy club.

For all the passion and, at times, anger in our politics, those things used to be true. But not anymore.

It isn't just a random protester here or an obscure blogger there who are showing this rejectionism. The branches of the conservative crazy tree reach much farther into the establishment than anything comparable on the left. There are leftists who think weird things, but they are treated with scorn by Democrats. In contrast, there are members of the United States Congress who believe that President Obama may have forged his birth certificate. Probable 2012 presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota -- heretofore known as a modern, moderate Republican -- recently started talking about "asserting our tenth amendment rights" to nullify federal laws. Pawlenty was lining up behind a series of Republican politicians, including Texas governor Rick Perry, South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. And does anyone think it's an accident that the now-famous Congressman Joe Wilson is a former aide to segregationist Strom Thurmond and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who supported keeping the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina statehouse?

read more here:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=stuff_some_white_people_dont_like

 

[lord_raken]

haha!

Ok. The reason why there would be lower incomes is because taxes would be higher and each household would have less money to spend. Nothing is ever free. You pay for your Nationalized health care with your ridiculously high taxes.

The wars ARE wasteful... but they're paid for only once. A program like health care will by uses resources every year indefinitely.

And its 20 million people without coverage. not 43 million.

My "speculative drivel" as you so flippantly call it is based off of basic Economic principles that have been proven factors for centuries.

No. It is a general lack of government involvement in the economy that allowed the U.S economy to grow.

If other economies were so strong, then how did a mistake made by U.S bankers throw a wrench into the world economy? Shouldn't the other countries have been protected from the rise and fall of other national economies?.... oh wait.... its because, for awhile the world economy was centered on the U.S.

I am not Conservative I am Libertarian. The Market system is based off of the order of the natural world. Survival of the fittest. That system is harsh but fair. Every man and woman either rises of falls on their own merits. Same goes for nations.

I'm not saying that the Insurance situation in the united states is perfect. It actually needs a lot of work. But the solution should have as little government involvement as possible.

Oh and just so you know... This round of health care reform doesn't even include a nationalized health care plan... if MIGHT include a public option but most of the reform is regulatory. So you don't get what you are advocating for.

Government is a necessary evil. "If men were angels." we would have no need for government.

and please keep a civil tong. resorting to insults and swearing only makes you sound like a jackass.

 

[Eejit]

I am not Conservative I am Libertarian. The Market system is based off of the order of the natural world. Survival of the fittest. That system is harsh but fair. Every man and woman either rises of falls on their own merits. Same goes for nations.

Idiocy.

People have inheritable possessions protected by law rather than their own ability. Comparison to natural selection is ludicrous.
And since human society often limits people's opportunities to succeed based on their background it's only logical that it should provide a safety net from sinking too low.

 

[Tyguy]

this is a good essay as to why some people might not like Obama and his healthcare reform:

That was a great article. I completely agree with the notion that most of these protests revolve around discrediting the first black president. For god's sake, the mere fact that people have hitler references is enough to paint a fairly obvious picture.

 

[CptStern]

haha!

Ok. The reason why there would be lower incomes is because taxes would be higher

you could easily redirect some of the money into healthcare by not invading the next iraq. even if income taxes are higher the cost if offset by not having to pay out of pocket for helathcare as every american does now. and IF failing that you have no reason to believe that it would come down to higher taxes across the board for every american as they have decided that yet. and even IF failing that you have no reason to believe americans would be taxed into poverty over healthcare or any other new tax; you're speculating based on partisan lines

and each household would have less money to spend. Nothing is ever free. You pay for your Nationalized health care with your ridiculously high taxes.

you're right our taxes dont pay for your war machines. seems like that takes precedent over the well being of a every last man woman and child living in the US

The wars ARE wasteful... but they're paid for only once. A program like health care will by uses resources every year indefinitely.

the cost of healthcare reform is projected to cost in and around 1 trillion over a 10 year period. Year to do date cost of Iraq/Afghanistan war: 909,741,999,078 since 2001 ..only 100 billion off the healthcare cost mark and 2 years sooner ..all you have to do is NOT invade countries every 10 years and you should be good. I know, with the US's track record that'll be difficult but you'll adjust

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/health-care/the-real-cost-of-health-care-reform/

And its 20 million people without coverage. not 43 million.

we're both wrong: (although to be fair I took mine from 2003 numbers, you pulled that number out of thin air)

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, their latest data available.1

My "speculative drivel" as you so flippantly call it is based off of basic Economic principles that have been proven factors for centuries.

but it's still speculative, unless you have a crystal ball tucked under your purple robe

No. It is a general lack of government involvement in the economy that allowed the U.S economy to grow.

and ...by forcing people to accept government hand outs instead of allowing private industry to gouge americans of what the rest of us see as an indelible right is a sure fire way of detroying the economy? ....okay, that sounds insane, paranoid, irrational and a is in fact a smokescreen for what reform really stands for but gosh darn it we need to fight socialism even if american lives depend on it!!!

If other economies were so strong, then how did a mistake made by U.S bankers throw a wrench into the world economy? Shouldn't the other countries have been protected from the rise and fall of other national economies?.... oh wait.... its because, for awhile the world economy was centered on the U.S.

:upstare: it's not that they're centred around the US it's that they're all interdependent within varying degrees of each other. like a stack of dominoes, except the US is a bif dominoe which affects a lot of stacks

I am not Conservative I am Libertarian. The Market system is based off of the order of the natural world. Survival of the fittest.

yadda yadda who cares but you dont live in a society that believes in survival of the fittest: your taxes (assuming you pay income tax) pays for things like medicaid and welfare, schooling etc etc etc

That system is harsh but unrealistic

fixed

Every man and woman either rises of falls on their own merits. Same goes for nations.

in a naive overly generalised way yes however it is the responsibility of government to govern our society ..our else we'd all revert to the tribal system ..and even then that's more socialist than socialism

I'm not saying that the Insurance situation in the united states is perfect. It actually needs a lot of work. But the solution should have as little government involvement as possible.

I have yet to see anyone from your POV provide a solution ..anything at all. and what you think is the best for americans is meaningless. there's far more qualified people who believe the opposite is true so does that automatically negate your opinion. i'd say yes

Oh and just so you know... This round of health care reform doesn't even include a nationalized health care plan... if MIGHT include a public option but most of the reform is regulatory. So you don't get what you are advocating for.

I'm advocating for americans to not be stupid and believe in nonsense like "socilist agenda" "death panels" etc. really I dont care what you people do

Government is a necessary evil. "If men were angels." we would have no need for government.
and please keep a civil tong. resorting to insults and swearing only makes you sound like a jackass.

I've never professed to be anything but ...anyways point out where I insulted you in my last post? I called politicians idiotic not you

 

[lord_raken]

About30%- 40% of the U.S Federal budget goes to welfare programs already! the military budget is significantly smaller.

I didn't support the war in Iraq. We have a right to attack Al-Qaida, but Iraq was a outright lie. We invaded a country because Our president was a bull headed idiot! Now we have a responsibility to help repair the damage. Pulling out right now would be weak, irresponsible and completely hypocritical. I blame Bush for getting us into this.

I agree. Maybe if we weren't spending so much money of war the gov could use some of the money to do some good. Life upgrading our info structure, providing research grants, cut taxes. That would be greatly beneficial.

Everyone has an agenda. the Republicans, the Democrats... everyone. Most of them would betray their own mother for the sake of the next election. There are very few idealist in politics... Ted Kennedy was one of them... i didn't like his policies but i respect the man for sticking to what he believed and and separating his personal faith from his politics. If we had more men like him in the government I would have more faith in it... but we don't so I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

 

[jverne]

@Stern


recent estimations showed that about 15% of taxpayers money goes illegally channeled into private pockets (in our country).

problem with taxes is that unless they are completely transparent corruption will occur. for instance...when we were in the process of building highways companies that lobbied the most got the deal and there are large sections of the road that were made ineffectively and are costing huge amount to maintain. some sections were made with inappropriate techniques. i agree that it's not a best example of tax inefficiency but more about corruption. point is that the highways were deemed a political priority the government threw money at them just so that they can be made in time to be shown off.
although i agree that strategic infrastructure should remain under government supervision, but things need to change.

there was similar scandals where our military paid more than the contract was actually worth. again the contractor was chosen trough devious means.


i have witnessed in first hand how government institutions choose to buy very expensive equipment which was overkill for their needs.
i think it's logical to assume that more money one has got the less likely he's gonna make every cent count.


the point is that unless good transparency is established (which few politicians want actually to happen), the practical way to limit gov spending is by giving them less money and make them think twice before doing something wasteful.

like i've already said, i like some socialistic aspects and dislike some. i'm more for government to operate trough enacting laws, rather that taking taxes and making their own programs. the role of a good government should be to motivate competition in the market, either trough tax breaks for the competitive firms or some other way of restricting unfair practices.

i heard in England, the tax on propriety includes how well your rooms are (sunlight) lit and stuff like this.
england has many examples of tax abuse...the time they ordered new electronic ID that could be hacked in in 12 minutes without expensive equipment. instead of canceling the deal they went forward with it.

i believe 70% of those protesters are Glen Beck drones, but some are truly sincere.

 

[Viperidae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1HFzw8lF7k

 

[CptStern]

About30%- 40% of the U.S Federal budget goes to welfare programs already! the military budget is significantly smaller.

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2008 for about 21% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spending

I didn't support the war in Iraq. We have a right to attack Al-Qaida, but Iraq was a outright lie. We invaded a country because Our president was a bull headed idiot! Now we have a responsibility to help repair the damage. Pulling out right now would be weak, irresponsible and completely hypocritical. I blame Bush for getting us into this.

78% of americans supported the invasion of iraq ..honestly I find it hard to believe you're in the 12th percentile

I agree. Maybe if we weren't spending so much money of war the gov could use some of the money to do some good. Life upgrading our info structure, providing research grants, cut taxes. That would be greatly beneficial.

but fixing the thing that is responsible for 60% of allpersonal bankruptcies in america isnt a priority. low taxes is.

Everyone has an agenda. the Republicans, the Democrats... everyone. Most of them would betray their own mother for the sake of the next election. There are very few idealist in politics... Ted Kennedy was one of them... i didn't like his policies but i respect the man for sticking to what he believed and and separating his personal faith from his politics. If we had more men like him in the government I would have more faith in it... but we don't so I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

ok ..but what does that have to do with anything? because politicians are not to be trusted healthcare reform should be rejected?

 

[CptStern]

@Stern


recent estimations showed that about 15% of taxpayers money goes illegally channeled into private pockets (in our country).

problem with taxes is that unless they are completely transparent corruption will occur. for instance...when we were in the process of building highways companies that lobbied the most got the deal and there are large sections of the road that were made ineffectively and are costing huge amount to maintain. some sections were made with inappropriate techniques. i agree that it's not a best example of tax inefficiency but more about corruption. point is that the highways were deemed a political priority the government threw money at them just so that they can be made in time to be shown off.
although i agree that strategic infrastructure should remain under government supervision, but things need to change.

there was similar scandals where our military paid more than the contract was actually worth. again the contractor was chosen trough devious means.


i have witnessed in first hand how government institutions choose to buy very expensive equipment which was overkill for their needs.
i think it's logical to assume that more money one has got the less likely he's gonna make every cent count.


the point is that unless good transparency is established (which few politicians want actually to happen), the practical way to limit gov spending is by giving them less money and make them think twice before doing something wasteful.

like i've already said, i like some socialistic aspects and dislike some. i'm more for government to operate trough enacting laws, rather that taking taxes and making their own programs. the role of a good government should be to motivate competition in the market, either trough tax breaks for the competitive firms or some other way of restricting unfair practices.

i heard in England, the tax on propriety includes how well your rooms are (sunlight) lit and stuff like this.
england has many examples of tax abuse...the time they ordered new electronic ID that could be hacked in in 12 minutes without expensive equipment. instead of canceling the deal they went forward with it.

i believe 70% of those protesters are Glen Beck drones, but some are truly sincere.

yet canada, the UK, france, spain hell even (eventually) Iraq have been providing whole populations with healthcare . only in america will corruption not make healthcare reform work. I dont see why this is always brought up when there's not a single example in any nation that can be used as a comparison ..because other than the US we ALL have universal healthcare. if anything your system rewards corruption as private industry gets to decide what health services you can and cannot have. there's no checks and balances to stop corruption besides toothless business associations. government would provide for checks and balances just as it does in every other country with universal healthcare. the problem is that americans are scaring up monsters that arent even there. this resistance is completely illogical

 

[jverne]

yet canada, the UK, france, spain hell even (eventually) Iraq have been providing whole populations with healthcare . only in america will corruption not make healthcare reform work. I dont see why this is always brought up when there's not a single example in any nation that can be used as a comparison ..because other than the US we ALL have universal healthcare. if anything your system rewards corruption as private industry gets to decide what health services you can and cannot have. there's no checks and balances to stop corruption besides toothless business associations. government would provide for checks and balances just as it does in every other country with universal healthcare. the problem is that americans are scaring up monsters that arent even there. this resistance is completely illogical

ture...that's why i said 70% of them are idiots for buying into that populist nonsense.
however it can't be denied that government spending is, not as rarely as one would like, wasteful.

i'm for national health care, but keep private medical businesses working and not completely bogged down by government. some people can afford private health care which is generally better (not necessarily cost efficient).

and no...i think government should have private companies in check, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be heavily taxed.
i'm not promoting a "leave it be" kind of economy where there are no regulations.

exampe: there's a difference between a law that requires firms to be less polluting and government taxing companies because they pollute.

i'm for the first version. because the second would mean somebody (government) would have to evaluate the tax which would probably end up poorly compiled and unfair. the first way would require companies to find the best solution. and besides i think it's easier to determine how not to pollute than how much should i tax you for polluting because data input on pollution would come from other sectors instead of just some dude in the office making up percentages.



one thing recently on my mind, although not really thought trough, is the reinvention of co-ops...which would be like mini socialist institution instead of one giant government. the logic behind this is that decentralization might be more efficient and less prone to serious corruption since members would be more closely involved.
but this is just a thought, didn't real went trough it in detail.

 

[CptStern]

ture...that's why i said 70% of them are idiots for buying into that populist nonsense.
however it can't be denied that government spending is, not as rarely as one would like, wasteful.

slap a bunch of people together that have to decide budgets for a whole wack of people and there's bound to be waste. this is true in small instutions as well as large. what you gonna do? anyways I dont see why this would sink america ..if they can "waste" almost a trillion dollars on pointless wars what the hell is another trillion or so to actually help people for a change?

i'm for national health care, but keep private medical businesses working and not completely bogged down by government. some people can afford private health care which is generally better (not necessarily cost efficient).

access to healthcare is a right akin to what the second amendment is to americans, you just havent had the forethought to put it on paper but you have signed on it:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

and no...i think government should have private companies in check, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be heavily taxed.

who doesnt have to be taxed?

i'm not promoting a "leave it be" kind of economy where there are no regulations.

so gm doesnt have build cars with seatbelts, products containing potentionally hazardous materials shouldnt have warning labels and hell if you want to go to school that's your perogative, who cares if religious fanatics are indoctrinating their children with idiocy! it's their perogative ...but it's not; it's the government's perogative to ensure these things dont happen ..so when a pharmaceutical company decides to test on unwilling subjects there's a law that prevents them from doing so

exampe: there's a difference between a law that requires firms to be less polluting and government taxing companies because they pollute.

same thing except you dont have to pay the expense of going through trials. so what you think is wasteful is not

i'm for the first version. because the second would mean somebody (government) would have to evaluate the tax which would probably end up poorly compiled and unfair. the first way would require companies to find the best solution. and besides i think it's easier to determine how not to pollute than how much should i tax you for polluting because data input on pollution would come from other sectors instead of just some dude in the office making up percentages.

look not for a freakin minute do I trust private industry with anything: their very first responsibility is to turn a profit. not so with government. example. British Columbia's railway lines were always maintaned by the government at a loss ..the very year they handed off that duty to private companies there were 3 derailments. more than there had been in the previous 10 years combined. they dont care about safety if it means it will interfere with profit making. they wouldnt even get into that or any particular business if there wasnt profit to be made

 

[jverne]

slap a bunch of people together that have to decide budgets for a whole wack of people and there's bound to be waste. this is true in small instutions as well as large. what you gonna do? anyways I dont see why this would sink america ..if they can "waste" almost a trillion dollars on pointless wars what the hell is another trillion or so to actually help people for a change?

yes if we plan to have a government that gives money to each person out there. the other way would be for these persons to find it's own way to get money. but i think we both agree that giving to some and not to others is unfair.

access to healthcare is a right akin to what the second amendment is to americans, you just havent had the forethought to put it on paper but you have signed on it:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

take it to the southern loonies, i have no argument here.

who doesnt have to be taxed?

companies

so gm doesnt have build cars with seatbelts, products containing potentionally hazardous materials shouldnt have warning labels and hell if you want to go to school that's your perogative, who cares if religious fanatics are indoctrinating their children with idiocy! it's their perogative ...but it's not; it's the government's perogative to ensure these things dont happen ..so when a pharmaceutical company decides to test on unwilling subjects there's a law that prevents them from doing so

government should constraint the manufacturers to allow the option of a seat belt. enforcing the use of it is a different story. any smart person would realize seat belts save lives, those who refuse to acknowledge this...well tough luck, it should be on your conscience that you killed your daughter.
don't get started on speeding, that's another story and it involves other people getting hurt not yourself or the ones you're responsible for. same goes for hazardous materials, warning labels, religion,...

same thing except you dont have to pay the expense of going through trials. so what you think is wasteful is not

the law is clear...don't pollute over the limit or you'll be sanctioned. it shouldn't take too many trials.

look not for a freakin minute do I trust private industry with anything: their very first responsibility is to turn a profit. not so with government. example. British Columbia's railway lines were always maintaned by the government at a loss ..the very year they handed off that duty to private companies there were 3 derailments. more than there had been in the previous 10 years combined. they dont care about safety if it means it will interfere with profit making. they wouldnt even get into that or any particular business if there wasnt profit to be made

there's a difference between "Laissez-faire" markets and mixed/regulated markets. i'm not propagating the first if i haven't been clear enough earlier.


and besides where do we draw the line between personal freedom and the nanny state? i'm a responsible shooter and still by the end of this year i might be fined from 4000€ to 10000€ if i don't report my airgun and get a firearms license which ironically it is priced the same as an airgun and doesn't even differentiate between a real weapon and that "toy". that means i'd be better off getting a real gun. this is just another means how government makes and collects inefficient/unfair fees.
and yeah...our new drivers license for motorbikes differentiates between four motorbike types. roughly 50ccm, 125ccm, 250ccm, +350ccm. for each category you have to pass tests that cost more or less the same, a further constraint is age which goes 14-> 50ccm, 16->125ccm, 18->250ccm, 21->+350ccm. ok if you wait till 21 you can go directly to the +350 category, but that doesn't excuse the downright criminal conditions if you're a growing teenage biker. if you ever drove a 50, 125, 250 (4T) you'd realize the difference is not that eye popping. this is clearly a money grabbing scheme.

 

[Eejit]

and besides where do we draw the line between personal freedom and the nanny state?

Easy. Behaviour which puts oneself in danger is fine. Behaviour which puts others in danger is not.

 

[Tyguy]

and any kind of behavior that results in an ejaculation is perfectly fine.

 

[jverne]

Easy. Behaviour which puts oneself in danger is fine. Behaviour which puts others in danger is not.

so carrying a folding knife in my pocket in public places (which i heard is forbidden in the UK) should be government sanctioned?

playing airsoft in the Netherlands is not allowed, because?

me driving a 125ccm which i'm fully capable of is not allowed because? (i drive mbikes for 9 years now and have a car for 5)


might not be textbook examples, but the point is it's not that easy to define what's harmful and what's not.
if we'd all consider everyone's "rights" we'd just vegetate for the rest of our lives.
we need to create a society of personal responsibility.

and any kind of behavior that results in an ejaculation is perfectly fine.

believe it or not i wanted to include that point as well, but chose not to

 

[Eejit]

so carrying a folding knife in my pocket in public places (which i heard is forbidden in the UK) should be government sanctioned?

playing airsoft in the Netherlands is not allowed, because?

me driving a 125ccm which i'm fully capable of is not allowed because? (i drive mbikes for 9 years now and have a car for 5)

A folding knife should be allowed.

I don't make the laws in the Netherlands...

If you drive following the safety guidelines in order to minimise the danger you pose to others then that's fine with me.

 

[jverne]

A folding knife should be allowed.

I don't make the laws in the Netherlands...

If you drive following the safety guidelines in order to minimise the danger you pose to others then that's fine with me.

well then...where can i vote for you?


oh and...if it's really early in the morning where the highways are mostly empty, can i speed a bit? or will i get a fine the same as going 80MPH in the middle of the city right when everybody is going out to lunch?

 

[Eejit]

In theory that would be ok, might be hard to enforce such variables in the law effectively though.


Anyway, that's where I see the cutoff between reasonable protection and nanny state being.