Obama, our dear & fluffy saviour... by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You Libs are hating him now for NOT doing enough, and my ilk hates him for already doing too much. Sort of ironical.

I'm still a Lib..

I don't hate him, I just think he's doing what's expected of him rather than what's right. He's done both too much AND not enough in different areas IMO.
I'll REALLY dislike him if he starts a new shooting war for dubious reasons, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:44 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just a question, are the authoritarians/Bush fans here all frustrated & upset that the rest of us do not consider Obama to be some kind of godsend? Does it limit their ability to strike back for all the years of finger-pointing at Bush & Cheney? Does it make them feel like maybe they see things a little more biased than they believed all along?

Just wonderin'.

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is.
Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you. Short from turning water into wine, I really don't know what you expected in the first place. He's doing his job....give him credit where credit is due.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:49 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I appreciate your honesty Chris. I can relate to your feelings of disappoinment with the President you voted for. I went through a similar evolution with Bush, although it took a bit longer than the few months Obama's been in office, and the disappoinment level was much higher.

From my perspective, Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the "Let's bankrupt America with Liberal fantasies" crowd have hit me over the head with a hammer so many times I can't feel anything these days except numbness and hopelessness. What's almost as painful to me is the continued presence of John McCain shooting his stupid mouth off on everything. The guy is a total tool. I despised him for years as a Senator, thought his campaign for President was incoherent and pitiful, and now am embarrassed at just about everything he says. He's like a frikkin' hemmorroid that won't go away. By the way, I consider everything that's now upsetting me and Conservatives just reward for the utter devastation that Bush Admin & Republican Congress created over 8 years. That's why I'm more or less just taking it all now without saying much against those now in power. It's called punishment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is.
Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

That's the stuff I like, but going through with the bailouts just like Bush would have stinks of big-money influence in retaining the immediate status-quo at the expense of our secure future IMO.

Quote:

As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you.

Don't. I voted for him & knowing what I know now I'd do it again- doesn't mean I LIKE the choices I had. He talks a good game, and I like that he's the first peep of colour to hold the office, but I wish he were more bold & radical, fearless & risky. I wanted the anti-matter Bush & had to settle for a less sex-starved Clinton. Oh well.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is. Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.

fix? how.. does he have a patent pending on some state of the art, afforable source of energy, previously undiscovered yet? coal is cheap and plentiful, and nuclear power is tried and proven. but the insane greenies would rather compromise the greatest economy the world has seen.

so.. if by 'tackle', you mean bring crashing to the ground, then i agree.. cap and trade will directly tax and inhibit every productive person or industry in America; just so we can feel good about ourselves.

and as for Obamacare, how does throwing a beauracrat between you and your physician save you money? his proposal is the equivelant to handing the entire system over to exactly those/and their schemes, who ruined our healthcare system. God help us if the state becomes the arbitor of our health and well being.

Quote:
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

i hope youre wrong about that.. God forbid we have to endure 5 terms of the Supreme Chancellor, his excellency Lord Obamas omniscience.

Quote:
As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you. Short from turning water into wine, I really don't know what you expected in the first place. He's doing his job....give him credit where credit is due

he's the epitome of every flawed, failed liberal policy of 80 years. theres nothing he can do to 'fix' this, short of dismantling the government back to its original form, the exact opposite of what hes doing. the stimulus didnt work, because collectivism/statism does not work.

about the only thing id give him credit for, is the speed at which him and his handlers, and the statists, are attempting to cram this down our throats, before the general public even gets a wink at the scope and danger of this complete subversion of our once constitutional republic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

he's the epitome of every flawed, failed liberal policy of 80 years.

No you dork, he's the epitome of every flawed, failed AMERICAN policy of the past 80 years.
I hand you the award for falling for the two-party system evil overlord plan.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:31 PM

by liberal, i mean statist. do you deny that in principle, statism/collectivism, and free market libertarianism are opposing idealogies? its irrelevant whether the two parties have become one, im just making the distinction between a good, market based initiative, and collectivist central planning agendas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
by liberal, i mean statist.

That is meaningless to me.

Quote:
do you deny that in principle, statism/collectivism, and free market libertarianism are opposing ideologies?

They would be, if emotional human impulses were removed from the equation. Power corrupts, and ideologies fall in the process. Law of the jungle, dude. Golden rule. Don't be so naive.
Libertarianism cannot be expressed in a corporate world. We are slaves, pure & simple.
Get used to it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:48 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

...as for Obamacare, how does throwing a beauracrat between you and your physician save you money?

If it takes three or four insurance company bureaucrats OUT of the loop, it can save you money. And time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:49 AM

I heard this on the radio this morning and to be honest . . . my jaw dropped to the floor. This is VERY chilling . . . and very telling. This is taken from the ABC coverage of Obama's plea to the American people about his healthcare plan and to be completely and totally fair, I got this from a socialist website, not from ABC News itself.

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Um . . . yeah. That makes me feel REALLY confident in his healthcare plan.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Ha! So there really is a "RipWash"

I thought when I saw somebody else quote you that they were "ripping" on WashnWear.

Never seen you around before and haven't read any of your posts, so I have no idea of your..... affiliations.

And I'm drunk....

How the hell are ya?

We could be friends or Nemesis here in the future, so I said F it and let's shake and be cool and gentlemanly about it all.

If the case be.... However much we hate each others ideals or thoughts.... nothing personal, right?

Nice meeting ya,
6

Christ.... I cheated and read your last post....

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

The scariest thing about this whole exchange is that I agree with it because we're so bankrupt. In an ideal world, we would be able to pay to keep a 105 year old alive until he/she was 106. Unfortunately, to do so would be a worse financial decision than supporting a family of illlegals for life, assuming a normal lifespan.

Why is this even a story?

It's to show that O'Bama is down for free medical care at great expense to those who actually earn a paycheck, but there will be limits and once you've reached them, fuck you.

I agree with it though. That's the worst part about centralism.... they get us to all agree on enough and enjoy the "easy" life that we just roll with all the punches.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:24 AM

That's my primary goal, 6. State my opinion/views, try my best to do it in a civil manner and try to play nice. Just ask Kwick and Chris . . . heck, even Citizen. We wholeheartedly disagree on a great many things in the political spectrum, but we mostly get a long just fine!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:41 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I heard this on the radio this morning and to be honest . . . my jaw dropped to the floor. This is VERY chilling . . . and very telling. This is taken from the ABC coverage of Obama's plea to the American people about his healthcare plan and to be completely and totally fair, I got this from a socialist website, not from ABC News itself.

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Um . . . yeah. That makes me feel REALLY confident in his healthcare plan.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

There is always the option in one of those countries that you can go private I suppose.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
That's my primary goal, 6. State my opinion/views, try my best to do it in a civil manner and try to play nice. Just ask Kwick and Chris . . . heck, even Citizen. We wholeheartedly disagree on a great many things in the political spectrum, but we mostly get a long just fine!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Citizen is a bonified dickhead and a waste of carbon, but I'm willing to bet that everyone else here, even PN and Kaneman, are human.

BTW... anyone hear from Kane in a while? Is he still alive?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Citizen is a bonified dickhead and a waste of carbon, but I'm willing to bet that everyone else here, even PN and Kaneman, are human.

Still blaming other people for the fact you've got no friends jack? Marvellous, can't stick to your word either I see, but then something like that would be too close to Human for you wouldn't it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

Possibly, but you and the question glosses over the other side of the story, namely who had to go without any healthcare of any type in order for the 105 year old to get it?

Any medical system is working on finite resources, it's amusing that only Socialised systems are the ones that recognise this, while it's the private only ones that like to brush the whole issue under the carpet.

So the issue can be asked another way, you're a doctor, you have limited time and resources regardless of the healthcare funding system, you can save either one thirty year old or one 100 year old who both have the same condition. Who do you choose?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:57 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Okay, while I am quite dissapointed so far in the administration's lack of fortitude on any of it's plans,

can those of you who are mad at him for doing too much, explain what the too much has been? Hell, he told us he was going to do a lot more from the get-go...after he got in, even with those promises, even FOX NEWS pretended to lay low for a while.

Then he goes and doesn't make good on any of his promises, because he compromises with the blue dog dems which are mouthpieces for the right, to the point of none of his efforts having much, teeth or substance.

Yet, in an ironic (though not surprising) response to this compromise, FOX NEWS and its ilk, go back on the attack and act like he's the next coming of STALIN.

There is clearly an ingenuousness here, wouldn't you say?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:04 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

Possibly, but you and the question glosses over the other side of the story, namely who had to go without any healthcare of any type in order for the 105 year old to get it?

Any medical system is working on finite resources, it's amusing that only Socialised systems are the ones that recognise this, while it's the private only ones that like to brush the whole issue under the carpet.

So the issue can be asked another way, you're a doctor, you have limited time and resources regardless of the healthcare funding system, you can save either one thirty year old or one 100 year old who both have the same condition. Who do you choose?

I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

Maybe universal health care with the option of special private care at extra cost is the fairest way then? Hmm, I'm wondering what Sergeant X would have to say to this.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

Not exactly, although that would be a factor. All healthcare systems have limited resources, no matter how they're funded. Private only systems deal with that issue by making it an economic decision, can't afford it, you don't get it, can afford it you get what ever you want.

Public healthcare systems deal with the situation by placing the resources they have where they'll do the most good. You have resources for one pacemaker, do you give it to the 100 year old who has already had a very long life, and might live another 5-6 years, or do you give it to the 30 year old who has had less than half the life time, and could live for another 50-60+ years?

It may sound callous that way, but if anything I find the rationale for private systems more so. Public health makes medical decisions about where it's resources are most needed. Private health throws all it's resources at those with the most money, whether they need them or not, and leaves others to die. Public health deals with finite resources, private hopes no one notices.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:57 PM

this is sickening..

only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

a real free market system would encourage competition! we have millions of people going into the profession, if run as a competitive business, you could shop around for care, and find the best cost. dont believe the canard that profit equals greed when it comes to healthcare. there will always be someone willing to work with you, regardless of your means..

why should some deadbeat, well-fare recipient, be given healthcare, funded by a productive member of society, who is intern taxed, and forced into a rationed system? its rediculous. i am in control of my health, no one else!

how did this country survive before medicare? before the beauracrats got involved? we got along just fine.. you could argue we had the greatest system in the world

its only become a cluster fuck since then!

this is a manufactured crisis, purely for the sake of population control and authoritarianism.

if im 90, and i want to pay for heart surgery, thats MY RIGHT AS A FREE HUMAN BEING! its no one elses business!! and it sure the hell isnt the "STATES" role to govern MY BODY!

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it. am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass? its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is sickening..

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it.

Describing it and identifying are two different things.
Quote:
am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass?
It owns your butt.
Quote:
its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

Somewhere, Satan is laughing.
We need to laugh at his powerlessness, not be sad to see it go.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:08 PM

ok, i identified it. what are you disputing exactly? that theres a difference between a government based on free will and individual liberty/responsibility, and the polar opposite, a pie-in-the-sky collectivist utopian fantasy? sure theres a gray area, but apart from complete anarchy, these are the opposing ideaologies

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:09 PM

Quote:
There is always the option in one of those countries that you can go private I suppose.

Of course, there is always the option that in THIS country you can do that as well. And that option will still be around if this country adopts a universal or single-payer healthcare plan, too.

That's the myth that's so pernicious in all this. The idea that if we adopt a universal healthcare plan, there will be no more private insurance available - POOF! - overnight. On the one hand, we have insurance companies and their lobbyists saying it will drive them out of business. And in the same breath, they're ALSO saying that "if the gubmint runs it, it won't be efficient". If it's not efficient, wouldn't that send people FLOCKING to private insurers, and HELP their bottom line? If it IS efficient and cheaper, don't the private insurers DESERVE to go out of business, or at least be forced to compete without government subsidies?

The idea behind universal healthcare is the same idea behind public education: it might not be the BEST you can possibly get, but it's a minimum standard; it's a safety net. You want better? You can buy that. What universal coverage would do would provide the basics of coverage, for everyone. If you get sick, you go to the doctor; you don't wait until you're deathly ill, and then go to the emergency room (the most expensive kind of healthcare out there), which is what many now do.

Bring up the "long waits" to see your doctor. When was the last time you called your doctor and got in that day? When was the last time you could just walk in and see your doctor without an appointment days or weeks in advance? We already HAVE long waits.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:19 PM

Quote:

I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

From what I've seen, insured patients insisting on expensive treatments often get dumped by the insurance company they paid their premiums to, or their treatments are deemed "experimental" and denied, or they're deemed to have a "pre-existing condition" - and treatment is denied.

Quote:
Maybe universal health care with the option of special private care at extra cost is the fairest way then? Hmm, I'm wondering what Sergeant X would have to say to this.

Could be that it IS the best way. I'm losing hope that we'll ever live to find out, though.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:19 PM

Quote:
chrisisall- Somewhere, Satan is laughing.
We need to laugh at his powerlessness, not be sad to see it go.

i dont want to stray from the subject, but people arent born innocent, we do have a fallen nature. in that sense, Satan is analogous to this condition, because he initiated it! im not gonna argue the truth of the bible here, but if we're describing a flawed world through the prism of compromised morality, then its fair to consider the foundation of morals and the human conscience. im pretty sure the theory of evolution is void of any insight into that discussion.. but you can mock it all youd like. unless im misunderstanding, then forgive me

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Of course, there is always the option that in THIS country you can do that as well. And that option will still be around if this country adopts a universal or single-payer healthcare plan, too.

That's the myth that's so pernicious in all this. The idea that if we adopt a universal healthcare plan, there will be no more private insurance available - POOF! - overnight.

i beg to differ. all the western governments have fiat currencies, which means unlimited funding! you think a private company can compete with a government option, when the government has the ability to print money out of thin air? watch what happens.. the government will undercut, and therefore render obsolete, the ability for a private company to compete; and thats the point!

they want to control you, dont you get it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is sickening..

only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

In other words, you don't think it's possible to hunt the buffalo to extinction. We can't run out of resources, ever? What about money? Can we run out of money? Or shall we just print some more?

Quote:
a real free market system would encourage competition! we have millions of people going into the profession, if run as a competitive business, you could shop around for care, and find the best cost. dont believe the canard that profit equals greed when it comes to healthcare. there will always be someone willing to work with you, regardless of your means..

A "real" free-market system loathes competition, and inexorably heads towards monopolistic behavior. Besides, lobbyists and special interests have already seen to it that there's no such thing as "competition" in the market today. They've paid good money to have any such competition hamstrung. And that canard about profit equals greed? Well, when the insurance companies are banding together and begging Obama to let them keep their racket intact, and they'll give up two trillion dollars in profits if he lets them keep the status quo, and they insist they'll STILL be all right and comfortably profitable even after giving away the two trillion...

Then yeah, that should show you where their greed is, and has been.

Quote:
why should some deadbeat, well-fare recipient, be given healthcare, funded by a productive member of society, who is intern taxed, and forced into a rationed system? its rediculous. i am in control of my health, no one else!

Why should I pay school taxes to try to educate your cretin kids? I don't have kids, so I'm exempt from school taxes, right? And I take care of my house and protect my family, so why should I have to pay taxes to support firefighters and police? And I don't need to go to the emergency room, so can we stop all public funding of those, too?

Are you in control of your health when you lose your job and your insurance? What about when you get hit by an uninsured motorist? Are you in control of it then? Are you in control of your health if your father had Parkinson's Disease and passed the gene on to you? What about diabetes? Heart disease?

Guess it's your own damn fault for not picking better parents, eh?

Quote:

how did this country survive before medicare? before the beauracrats got involved? we got along just fine.. you could argue we had the greatest system in the world

You could argue that if you didn't know anything about our history. Look up life expectancies and mortality rates before WWII sometime. Look up "pandemic" sometime. Check out "smallpox" when you get a chance. Individual PEOPLE didn't just decide to gut it up and make things better - those were GOVERNMENT programs, and they damned well improved things in this country.

Quote:

if im 90, and i want to pay for heart surgery, thats MY RIGHT AS A FREE HUMAN BEING! its no one elses business!! and it sure the hell isnt the "STATES" role to govern MY BODY!

Can you afford to pay for it out of your own pocket, then? If so, feel free.

Quote:

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it. am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass? its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

1) Horseshit.

2) "Irregardless" is not a word. If it were, it would be a double negative. "Regardless" means "without regard", so "irregardless" would mean "without without regard" - or, in REAL words, "with regard".

3) Are you a "sovereign being"? Ummmmm... NO. Do YOU think you have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, "irregardless" of how it impacts others? Are you one of those freaky conspiracy dudes that prints his own license plates, since "the law" doesn't recognize any authority higher than a Sheriff or Constable? Try out your "sovereign being" theory sometime. Print your own money, in the name of The Nation of AntiMason. See how well it spends.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:59 PM

forgive me for misspeaking, i get ahead of myself sometimes.

im not arguing the current system is perfect, clearly it needs reform. but if you think nationalizing healthcare is the solution, youre crazy

nothing could be more impersonal then centralized planning, it only serves to homogenize to the lowest common denominator, and youre example of public education is perfect evidence of this.

and their are plenty of resources, if youre solution is to ration based on eligibility, then youre probably among the ilk who favor euthenasia and abortion. id rather not go down that road, if we can help it

prior to ww2? relative to the technology available, i would make that arguement

if i cant pay for an emergency, thats real personal responsibility. i dont need a safety net, not that i dont appreciate it, but id rather be ideaologically consistant

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:00 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
can those of you who are mad at him for doing too much, explain what the too much has been?

I explained on this thread on Monday June 22nd:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=38823

Don't just take my word for it. Read the links I posted.

--------------------------
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
-- Abraham Lincoln

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:17 PM

Quote:

nothing could be more impersonal then centralized planning, it only serves to homogenize to the lowest common denominator, and youre example of public education is perfect evidence of this.

So am I to take this as you advocating the abolition of public education?

[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how that will make us a better-educated nation...[/sarcasm]

Quote:

and their are plenty of resources, if youre solution is to ration based on eligibility, then youre probably among the ilk who favor euthenasia and abortion. id rather not go down that road, if we can help it

Ration based on eligibility? What the hell are you even talking about? Do you have health insurance? If you do, aren't you asking your insurance company to ration resources based on eligibility? After all, if you pay your premiums, you're "eligible" - and if you don't, you aren't, and therefore THOSE resources are rationed out to someone who IS eligible (i.e., paying premiums). Get it?

And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:27 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
A "real" free-market system loathes competition, and inexorably heads towards monopolistic behavior.

A real free market system would feel no emotions such as loathing. You are anthropomorphising an economic system, assigning personal attributes such as hate and greed.

More accurately speaking, some people in a free market system loath competition and head towards monopolistic behavior--just like some people do in any system.

The difference in a free market system is the government will not make laws to prohibit competition or facilitate monopolistic behavior, as in other systems.

Let's illustrate. You want to make a little money, and you think you can sell loads of lemonade from a secret lemonade recipe you invented. However, Lemonade Inc. has cornered 99% of the lemonade market and doesn't want anyone to offer serious competition, so as to keep its near monopoly. Now let's examine two possible scenarios.

#1. You have to invest in a commercial property because you are not allowed to sell stuff from your home in a residential zone. You can't afford minimum wage, so you do everything yourself. You need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to meet standards for the state inspection, state business license, etc. You then have to pay a bunch of money in taxes. Result: if you don't have a lot of capital to begin with, you are very unlikely to succeed and pose any competition to Lemonade Inc.

#2. You can sell lemonade from your home, avoiding huge overhead costs. You can barter and pay whatever wage you wish, as long as you find employees who would accept--allowing you to have help. You rely on reputation and word of mouth for the quality and safety of your lemonade, and have no state inspection or business expenses. You keep the money you make, to expand your business and pay your employees better (for better service). Result: even the littlest guy has a shot at the business game, because you don't need a lot of capital to take a turn to bat.

Without debating the value of the laws enacted to protect the consumer, it is clear that the situation with fewer laws, the situation that allows more freedom, also allows more competition and less monopoly.

If you believe in those laws, then the free market question is a balance between consumer protection on one hand, and product diversity/competiton on the other hand. That is to say, the more laws to protect consumers and employees, the less product diversity you have. Less laws = more diversity.

People with more money will always have an advantage in any system. But in a free market system, with less laws, less force, and more freedom, the little guy actually has a chance to make it bi. In a system where he is forced to abide by laws influenced by the big boys, his chances are so much smaller.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
in a free market system, with less laws, less force, and more freedom, the little guy actually has a chance to make it bi. In a system where he is forced to abide by laws influenced by the big boys, his chances are so much smaller.

Ummm....no.
It can work that way, doesn't always.
Less laws = attempts to screw the little guy (see overdraft fees at banks & such).
More laws = attempts to screw the little guy legally, which is more difficult.

I'd rather make it harder for 'em.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
people arent born innocent

That is a twisted, evil way of seeing things that justifies man's inhumanity to man. If there IS a Satan, he laughs every time one of us falls for that line of crap.
Period.
No go play with your voodoo dolls, you superstitious cave-dweller.

The concrete Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way

Hopefully.

Quote:
, private does it by letting poor people die.

Absolutely.

This hysteria over health care in this country is much like the rush to destroy Saddam before he took over the world, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

I guess I'm the only one that did not fully grasp what he meant by that.

Colourmestupidisall

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Ummm....no.
It can work that way, doesn't always.
Less laws = attempts to screw the little guy (see overdraft fees at banks & such).
More laws = attempts to screw the little guy legally, which is more difficult.

I'd rather make it harder for 'em.

You're talking about little guy consumer. I am talking about little guy competitor.

Less laws = more freedom for little guy competitor, less protection for little guy consumer

More laws = less freedom for little guy competitor, more protection for little guy consumer.

That is why I presented the free market dilemma as a choice between product diversity (more competition) vs. consumer protection. It seems to me, you can't have both--protecting one screws the other.

From my perspective, I prefer product diversity and competition, because I think in the long run, competition itself provides some level of protection for the consumer, albeit a different kind of protection than the legal one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:48 PM

CTS, a most reasoned response! I will think upon it.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 9:43 AM

MALACHITE

Chrisisall said: "That is a twisted, evil way of seeing things that justifies man's inhumanity to man. If there IS a Satan, he laughs every time one of us falls for that line of crap.
Period.
No go play with your voodoo dolls, you superstitious cave-dweller. "

I'm not sure if you are being serious here, but I'll respond as if you are. Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition. He is not using that to justify man's inhumanity to man. From a Christian perspective, man's inhumanity to man is not justifiable, it is evidence of "sin". Hope that clarifies...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.

Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.
Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

Like it's been said before, Chris. . . Did you have to teach your son to steal? To lie? To be selfish? Or did you have to teach him to "play nice?"

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:29 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.
Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

Well now I know you are just being silly.

Anyways, there are much better ways to manipulate people into staying in church and making donations -- eternal damnation, excommunication, etc... I mean, really... What kind of god worth worshipping would declare us righteous solely based on how much money we gave it? I know that paying for spiritual blessings or passage to a good afterlife or whatever is a concept of many religions, but I just don't find it consistent with a God that is actually worthy to be worshipped. God is more interested a person's heart than some external, legalistic, superficial offering.

You also said:
"It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench" To quote Mal to Wash's "I'm a leaf on the wind": "What does that even mean???"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Like it's been said before, Chris. . . Did you have to teach your son to steal? To lie? To be selfish?

No, and he hasn't stolen, does not lie (I think he's Vulcan), and is far from ever being selfish.

Quote:
Or did you have to teach him to "play nice?"

He plays nice quite naturally- in many respects, he is the ideal offspring. He protested just today that I didn't have to kill the giant wasp that found it's way into our living room, he said I could've just knocked it out & removed it.
I guess he missed the original sin memo before he was born.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:36 AM

I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:

Well now I know you are just being silly.

It's what I do, darlin'.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:59 AM