Posts Made By: Dave Wagner

Important point here: Iran is NOT an Arab nation... It is Persian. Persians are NOT Arabs...

They are (in majority) a MUSLIM nation, though their brand of Islam (in Iran's case: Shi'a) is NOT same as the majority in Iraq (Sunni), which is part of the much broader/bigger problem.

The problem isn't Arabs, or even Palestinians... it is Islam, and more specifically the manner in which all of these other ethnic and geo-political situations are "leveraged" by fanatical Islamicists (of varying "sects") to drive their larger and very specific agendas (and it is much bigger than only the Wahabists from Saudi...).

You've got multiple factions of militant Islam, each convinced theirs is the ONLY way to heaven, and simultanously each/all believing that violence to convert/subvert "infidel non-believers" is not only acceptable, it is REQUIRED. It's not just against "the Great Satan - the US", or "the evil Jews - Israel"; they are doing it to each other! The entire history of the Muslim-influenced part of the world is completely societally and morally "stuck" in the 10th century, precisely BECAUSE of the Koran.

This is the flaw with Islam (any variant) versus the other major world religions: it is the only one whose "fundamental scripture" not only condones violence in service of it's message, it encourages and even requires it (depending on various sects differing readings of the Koran).

Much of the Koran is indeed good wisdom and guidance for the human spirit. And those who follow THOSE aspects of the Koran can indeed be (and are) wonderful, well-integrated citizens of whatever larger society they find themselves.

But there is, unfortunately, quite a bit of the Koran that has been used verbatim to justify forced violence and conversion against non-believers. The Koran does say it is justified, required AND rewarded to KILL unbelievers. Jesus NEVER said anything like this (in fact 100% the opposite).

Note: this very is different than the MIS-use of the Bible to justify, for example, the Crusades. There is in fact NOTHING in the "red print" in the New Testament that could EVER be read to justify human initiation of violence against other humans; under any circumstance. But, back then "the Catholic Church" (led by "radical extremists") didn't allow the lay-person to READ the Bible (heck, masses were still in Latin until recently!), and hence they could easily "thought control" what the masses were "supposed to do"... hence the misuse of "Christianity" to invoke violence AGAINST Muslims. The laiety were misinformed and hence misled.

The solution there was transparency, open-ness and communcation. Anyone who has ever read the New Testament would NEVER condone initiation of violence against any innocents as a means to "spread the gospel", or further any "agenda". It's anathema.

Perhaps the "answer" with the larger Islamic problem today is a world-wide council of Islamic scholars, to INVALIDATE once and for all - with credibility, those parts of the Koran that specifically recommend, incite, require and reward violence in the name of the religion... I.e. a modern, Islamic version of the Nicene convention...

Bombing them doesn't solve the problem. It only makes it worse... now, if/when they initiate violence against us, that is a different story.

The answer to the larger problem is indeed unclear.

Donald Allen said:

with no seperate plan for anyone.

Everyone exactly the same. Everyone gets sucky care. Everyone waits. Everyone pays more and more every year to the nanny state for less and less...

Everyone, that is, except the oligarchs and the "connected" politicians and statists...

Yep, been there, done that... From the government to the people, all are equal, none have property, none are "better" than the others...

it's called Marxism/Leninism...

PS: it's "separate" as in "there's a 'rat' in separate"... just like there's a "rat" in Democrat...

Mark Rieck said:

For your consideration...

In case you were not aware or have been misinformed, if you have an existing policy through an employer now, you can keep that.

Yes, you COULD - only if you could AFFORD Cobra! Which most cannot because in most cases employers would pay around 80% of the actual policy cost. A policy I was paying $250-300 per month for when I left my job in 2007, cost $12,000 per year under COBRA... so THAT particular law, forced on the "system" by the Left btw, sounded GREAT, but was unworkable... Typical statist solution though, COBRA; makes people FEEL GOOD and gets their VOTES, but doesn't actually SOLVE anything!

I agree that the existing system is poor. My wife just lost he job a couple of weeks ago, which is how our family was paying for health insurance. I think you may not be aware as to just how many are gainfully employed but do not have any coverage offered by their employer.

Firstly, the system is demonstrably NOT POOR - in terms of QUALITY OF SERVICE. We have the BEST quality of healthcare service in the world. Period. Full stop. So, it's COST that is broken. Not availability, nor quality.

For MOST small business and the self-employed, the choices are STARK. Your "pool" (amongst which the risk is spread which is the whole science by which any type of insurance works), is so small as to be unworkable. This means policies for such people are dreadfully expensive. I know this because it is exactly MY situation. I'm now up to $15,000 per year for my families policy.

Under conservative policy of the past 3 decades, along with jobs lost, literally millions that are still here have been trending towards offering only 30-35 hour work weeks in order to dodge having to offer any benefit packages at all(and at lower base wages to boot, so the other smoke and mirrors talking point about savings accounts are completely out of touch with reality).

I'm not even going to rebut at length the nonsense of net "jobs lost in the last 3 decades"... it's patently and self-evidently false. There are clearly far more employed today in the US than there were in 1980. The economy is larger (much) and more people are employed (many).

Employers will ALWAYS try to reduce operating costs as much as possible. Mark, I believe YOU run a business, no? You have precisely 2 levers by which to keep your company profitably in business... raise prices, or lower costs... So, when the GOVERNMENT enters into a system and "mandates" coverage, what are employers to do? Some reduce costs, whether via part time so as to not have to offer such costly benefits, others simply do not hire (fewer jobs), and the rest? Raise Prices! Raising prices is always a LAST choice for any company, because you lose customers when you do so.

If you have been buying into talking points about interstate competition, that is largely nothing more than a sham. The fact is that there are a small handful of companies that control health insurance in our country these days. A company like WellPoint already offers coverage plans in State A and State B, with rates for identical plans varying wildly from State to State. For example, within a given State rates offered by a WellPoint owned subsidiary and a Humana run subsidiary are already similar to identical for that State.

Under this smoke screen, Joe Smith will be 'shopping rates' from the same companies. In cases where a new player (like Blue Cross) is not currently operating in a State, rates quoted cannot be rationally expected to be lower than those from companies that do currently operate in that State. Need proof? Ask residents of States where 25-40% rate hikes have recently been requested. In other words, this measure does NOTHING to bolster competition, which is the root argument of this talking point. It's the same small handful of semi-monopolies no matter what.

Something we (mostly) agree upon. But lets take this to the next level. What was it that MADE it possible for those self-same health insurance companies to grow so big in the first place? Was it the private individuals paying money directly to their doctors (like it was in the 60s and before)? Nope (no insurance involved there)! The only health insurance - in those days - was for DISASTER health coverage, the medical equivalent to life insurance, or auto-insurance. You don't buy insurance to pay for your freaking OIL CHANGES in your car, you buy it for the rare, but extremely costly, major accidents! It USED to be this way with Health Insurance, you know...

Once Government entered into the subsidization of "basic health care business" with Medicaid and Medicare starting in the mid/late 60's, the whole game changed. There's MONEY to be made here! And the insurance companies jumped RIGHT in... Take them out of all that, out of all the administration, rules, guidelines, etc... and all that WASTED cost goes away... and that means funds available back into the broader "system"...

The only way to resolve this is to get the government 100% OUT OF IT. Anything less is just repeating the spiral into cost-oblivion we've already seen. Key to that is to have healthcare 100% paid by those using it - directly. Make ALL health expenditures tax deductible (insurance AND service/goods) to the taxpayer paying for it (with NO "floors" like under the current code. Then, and only then will each/every healthcare "consumer" be vigilant to police "what they get for what they pay"...

Want to know how to test if this is "valid"... watch the response of the Insurance companies to THIS idea! LOL

Many of us, myself included, witnessed an annual switch in health insurance providers all the way back to the 1990's. Despite holding the same position for the same company for years, I saw my coverage go from insurance company A to insurance company B....and then back and forth from A to B again! All the while, coverage was cut year by year. While opinions may vary, that's pretty clear to many of us that health insurance providers have their interests rooted more in the interests of shareholders than policy holders. For anyone that might disagree, I'd love to hear an explanation as to how this makes sense otherwise.

See above two comment blocks. Companies were shopping costs out of the equation, to the extent they could do so and comply with ever-changing governmental regulatory change.

Capitalism and profit are absolutely wonderful. Monopolies and quasi-monopolies are by their very nature, not competitive.

Precisely right, Mark. And that most CERTAINLY and demonstrably includes the GOVERNMENT. Look at what the "monopoly" on education has created... Kids who are behind virtually every developed nation on virtual every measure, and local taxes to pay for public schools that mean that towns like the one I live in are spending $12K per year per student! (When I can send my kid to private school for 1/2 that amount and get them a more solid education) - Madness!... The list goes on...

Fostering continued growth and control of such a large and vital segment of our economy is a far cry from the ideals of American capitism. Monopoly busting is not the dreaded socialism talking heads are playing to. Heck, one can argue it's an American tradition rather than some nefarious plot. The same founding fathers spin doctors quote on a weekly basis also made it very clear controls may have to be implemented from time to time, yet quoting ONLY those statements that support a one sided argument trying to be sold at the time is common with 'political entertainers'.

The only "growth" the government has "fostered" in the Medical sector has been 100% inflationary. Unreal. Unsustainable.

And, the controls would NOT be needed if the government weren't involved in the first place. The profit in the system - which has swung AWAY from Doctors and TO the "system/bureaucrats" (insurance companies and the politicians of both parties they BUY) - would move back to the Doctors/providers - where it belongs, and the expenditures back under the purview of the consumers whose money it is, where the CONTROL in the transactions belong.

Before this debate began in earnest, both conservative and liberal economists could concur that one of the leading reasons American business has lost a competetive edge in the world market is due to benefit package costs, which comprise a substantial percentage of labor costs. For a vast majority of Americans that means one thing, health insurance. In other words, health care cost that compromise 1/6 of our economy is vital not just to our physical health, but our economic health as well.

Unfunded promises and commitments are just that. So the liberal/left ANSWER is to model our "solution" to this anti-competitiveness after the rapidly bankrupting example of Europe??? Huh? How does creating yet MORE entitlements solve THAT problem... Giving the state control over another 15-20% of our total economy is NOT the answer, sir!

Economists (and average Americans) with widely differing ideological approaches could also concur that a large part of skyrocketing costs of care itself is driven by those insured and out of pocket paying customers having to pick up the tab from uncollectable emergency room visits; which is how those who have lost, or cannot afford, or can no longer afford health insurance coverage now obtain care for no only catastrophic care needs, but also common for common ailments and minor injuries.

Firstly, why do we think that there should be some type of government insurance to pay for routine healthcare? Insurance doesn't work that way! I suppose you COULD perhaps find an automotive insurance policy that would pay for routine maintenance, checkups, etc... but it wouldn't be COST-EFFECTIVE. This is precisely why health insurance should ONLY be for the "big stuff"... everything else must be a cost that INDIVIDUALS must factor into their life/expenditure decisions!

And, funny how those "picking up the tab costs" weren't a big problem BEFORE the government started it's involvement with Medicair/Medicaid... They weren't a problem because there weren't multiple additional layers of value NON-ADD (Government, Lobbyists, Lawyers, Insurance Companies) sucking up most of the money in between the consumer and the provider... The system then was Consumer to/from Suppliers

The left may argue covering all Americans is a moral imperative, and I get their point.

Maybe, but certainly NOT to the 20-30 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!! Screw THAT! Kick em OUT.

The right may argue tort reform is vital to cut costs, and I get their point. Still, IMO both arguments tend to be slightly off topic since few on either side will argue reduction of the enormous costs already being saddled to every American in this regard is a dollars and cents issue no matter how you look at it.

The Becks, Boehners, and Grassleys of the world are offering the public only half of the truth. Profits for and dividends paid insurance companies are a prime example of how one side can play with the numbers(leaving out the whole truth in other words) in order to gain support from policy holders when in fact, revealing the whole truth indicates a far different picture that grossly favors shareholders at the expense of those same policy holders.

By your logic above apparently somehow "shareholders" are not ALSO citizens who have to pay THEIR bills? They're something *different* and, apparently, somehow "evil"?

I make darn sure I obtain information about topics and issues from multiple sources, and strongly suggest every American do the same. Why? When one does, the whole truth is then often presented, from which a more fully informed citizen can then come to their own conclusions. Whether those opinions lean towards either end of the political spectrum does not matter. What does matter is that those in Washington might be forced to adhere closer to the truth when presenting their arguments.

Agreed. Both parties and ends of the political spectrum are totally disingenuous on this so called "crisis", just as, unfortunately, they were on the 2007/2008 financial crisis (which they also caused!). The healthcare crisis was 100% created by the government and it's ill considered policies over the last 40 years, just as the financial crisis was created by the government and it's ill considered policies (and regulations) over the last 30 years - or 80+ years if you include the ponzi-scheme that is Social (in)Security.

There is a deliberate agenda of inducing fear via misinformation intended to demonize both MSM and fellow Americans that may not share a common opinion. This in turn is making easy pickins' of those that have been led to believe that both fact and opinion are one in the same. The very survival of our two party system and it's ability to govern effectively is at stake, not just how we and our neighbor might pay for knee surgery next year.

Screw the Republicrats and the Democans... They are, for all intents and purposes the same at this point. We must return to a truly (educated) citizen-legislator model, get the government OUT of as much of our economy as possible, as quickly as possible, or it will be too late.

We are already on the cusp of the ugly reality that approximately half of all Americans pay no federal income tax... when that swings only a tad further - which is Obama and the Democrats stated goal ("increase taxes on the Rich"), it will make the current situation and crisis irreversible.

Just for yucks, sometime, go check out the IRS website and find out where the taxes actually COME FROM these days... And find out the share the "rich" (anyone above $200K) is already paying...

Any Rand was right in 1957... It's time to SHRUG!

Actually, it's been on an "out of control" (price versus quality received) vector starting with the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in the 60's... just as public education has been on an "out of control" (price versus quality received) vector starting with the Federalization of education dollars in the early 70's, just as taxation has been on an "out of control" (cost versus services/goods received) vector ever since initiation of the income tax (instead of use/services taxes and fees before that).

what do ALL of these (and there are many MANY more) have in common? STATISM!

The government, the STATE, if you will... can do almost NOTHING more cost effectively or as well (quality wise) as the private market.

Before the government started throwing money AT the so-called "health care problem" (with Medicaid/Medicare to start), virtually EVERYONE had access to doctors; most doctors did pro-bono HOUSE CALLS on the poor, or at their local hospitals. The government made it a "funded entitlement" threw money at it, and money chasing supply/services started the upward spiral we're on today. Money chasing goods/services ALWAYS increases prices. More money in the "system" attracted the "leeches"...

Compound that with ridiculous Tort system and lawyers, and medical costs spiralled. OB/GYNs routinely pay $100-200K per year now for so-called "malpractice insurance"... who do you think PAYS for this? Which party are the trial lawyers in bed with, hmmm?

Taking the private consumer of ANY service out of the financial decision equation, and further insulating them with an unelected, taxpayer funded, bureaucracy is a guaranteed recipe for disaster...

Look, it really doesn't matter WHICH so-called "party" is in charge of the statist bureaucracy... the result is the same... the parties only tinker around the edges... it's a "gamed system".

ANY further government involvement in healthcare will BANKRUPT both quality and quanity of service... just as they've already demonstrably bankrupted our education system, our so-called "Social Security" system, and everything ELSE they've wormed their statist hands into.

Governments in the course of human history have only ever been good at two things: Breaking things, and killing people... at which they are demonstrable most proficient.

In the 60's, private doctors did house calls, charged reasonable fees, people paid for them directly. Those that couldn't got charity medical care... And the system handled it; certainly better than today, where if you are a self-employed person, it now costs you over $15,000.00 per year to purchase a health insurance policy for your family (and THAT has a $5000 deductible)...

But the government, and the statist nanny-staters supporting them had to create a CRISIS (Shout it out brothers!), to justify taking money from those who worked to give to those who didn't so they could "get access to healthcare"... and thus began the ultimate decline of the cost-effectivity of our medical system...

the next - unavoidable - step in this spiral is that quality WILL begin to suffer as all incentives are driven OUT of the system in the name of "fairness"... then will come UNAVAILABILITY... and..

Just like the lefties want, we'll all - FINALLY - be precisely equal... It'll suck for 100% of EVERYONE.

Stop the madness... Vote all the statist bastards OUT in 2010. Every last one of em.

Luca Grella said:

50,000 Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, many others bankrupt or give their entire salary to health insurance companies
to afford the treatment they need just to stay alive.
The people who do not want this to change are morally responsible for these tragedies; they remind me of those Europeans in WWII who knew about death camps
and did nothing about it.
If you think that the bill is a "monstruosity" against your freedom you should think about the inhumane monstruosity of the servile massively lobbied
right wing politicians who are keeping this status with the excuse they are protecting american independence.

1. Firstly, if you don't calm down, you'll likely throw an embolism and add to the problem
2. This "crisis" of unaffordability was CAUSED by the government in the first place - every system the government gets involved in has quality decline and costs explode? Just as true for "right wing" pet areas like military budget, as for lefty pets like Education, SSI/Medicaid, etc...
3. Finally, if you don't like it here, leave... may I suggest a properly enlightened, socialistic state with world class affordable healthcare like, say, Greece, or Italy, or France, or... where many more are dying while waiting to get ACCESS to healthcare for FREE? Or maybe Canada, right next door, where their provincial government officials STILL come to the US for their operations!

In any event, don't you DARE presume to take on the authority to declare that I, or anyone else, is morally responsible for these so-called tragedies! I lost my sister last year after a 6 year bout with a very rare bone marrow disease, when her very expensive (well over $1M) transplant FAILED. You clearly and demonstrably know NOTHING about the true state of the US healthcare system (cost or quality), and are simply spewing lefty/statist plattitudes out of some (apparent) desire to force "everyone to be equal" (yep, equally in SQUALOR and poverty!)

How many MORE Americans die or give their entire salaries (or most of em anyways) to the GOVERNMENT you somehow think will "take care of us all"? Half of all Americans are already paying for the other half! Where will you statists stop? When there is only one person left working to pay for all the rest? Do some research before you spout your emotional venom.

The true immorality is somehow believing that ANYONE has the right to point a gun to the head of anyone else and FORCE them to pay for/take care of anyone not of their choosing! Now THAT is monstrous.

Calm down, do some research, and if you still feel the same, leave.

Luca Grella said:



<<2. This "crisis" of unaffordability was CAUSED by the government in the first place - >>

Nope, the crisis of unaffordability is created by the fact that the insurance companies are
publicly traded companies therefore they have to increase their profit every year in order for their stock to be worth anything. At some point the healthy persons drop out of the plan and all the cost (including ER) is wedged into the people who need treatment hence their premium skyrockets, it is pretty simple to understand.

>>> are you even aware of the Medical system and healthcare payments BEFORE the government was involved? How old ARE you? The government caused the high prices in the first place by throwing subsidized tax dollars AT healthcare (in the name of "ensuring the poor could get healthcare")... that money, chasing supply, caused prices to RISE, causing more calls for MORE coverage... and a spiral (over 45 years) ensued... Eventually, people HAD to have "so called" health insurance because there was no other way to pay for what they USED to pay for directly, avoiding all the costs of all the middlement the Government created: Insurance companies, Lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, health taxes, etc...

Back BEFORE the government was involved, people could afford, and did!, to call their doctor, get a house-call, and pay in Cash or by check... It was cheap because it was customers paying providers DIRECTLY. Price it too high, and people didn't use it! Doctors provided a LOT of pro-bono work. Nobody worried about trial lawyers suing Doctors out of business. OB/GYNs didn't need $200K/year "insurance"...

The "insurance" racket was CREATED by Government fiat, in collusion WITH the Insurance companies, make no mistake. But the Government, driven by people of YOUR inclinations to force them to "do something" all the time, created the system by which the Insurance companies profited (and by which they now BRIBE BOTH parties).

Pull your head out of Pollyanna land and do some historical research.


<<>>

Despite your intimidations I say what I think is right to say and I am convinced that the ideological talking points have and always had a huge moral cost. I am sorry for your loss and by the fact that this truth somehow
insults you.

>>>> What insults me is you impugn MY (and others) morals without even knowing ANYTHING about me (or them) other than that I (or they) oppose statism in every way, shape or form. You know NOTHING about what I do to take care of OTHER people, here in the US or elsewhere in the world. Your argument is ad-hominem, at best.

BTW: I think the word you wanted was intimations, not intimidations... but maybe you ARE intimidated by logic and fact?



<>

If you have expressed here what you know, then you know nothing.

ROFLMAO.... Well, I know how to spell, I know how to construct grammatically correct sentences, and I know a great deal - as an employer (and someone who has had immediate family members involved as Doctors in the US healthcare system for over 50 years), about our health care system, both BEFORE the Government F***ed it up, and after... both as consumer AND as someone who pays for others.

All you apparently know is to spew emotional venom at people you don't know, on an assumption of "motive" based on emotions you feel, independent of any apparent thought.




<<>>
To let a fraction of the people die in order to keep the wealth of a smaller fraction of people and pretending
that it is done to save liberty, is immoral and unethical. That is my opinion and I confirm it.

>>> you confirm your ignorance of reality. Nobody is talking about "letting people die". Taking my, or anyone elses "wealth" at the point of a gun and forcing it to be spent on people or causes I don't approve is immoral and wrong. By what RIGHT? What if the money you and your ilk take causes me (or others) to starve, become homeless or die?

WHO has the RIGHT to DECIDE? In your mind, it's apparently somehow OK if it is big nanny government. I'm sure the Germans felt that was fine too...

Statism is evil, in ANY/ALL forms. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


<<>>
I am perfectly calm even in front of an arrogant who wants the other opinions to "leave" unless are changed.

Here is why you are a racist:
In the united states there are many other people (a large majority) who think exactly they way I do, should they leave too or this invitation is valid only for me???

How, sir, does that make me a RACIST? I know NOTHING about your race, nor would I care at all... YOU mentioned RACE, not me...

Typically lefty loony, scream "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever emotional epithet is convenient, at the drop of a pin... or whenever your so-called "logic" is threatened...

By the way, by your so-called logic, if a majority decided that all people named Luca should be shot, and their corpses used for fertilizer, that is somehow OK???

I'm at least somewhat thankful, that, as yet, a true majority of Americans do NOT feel/think the way you do. If/when that becomes the case, then you'll find that I, and those who think like I do will leave...

and then... Remember the song from the late 60s... lyrics went "Tax the rich, feed the poor, til there are no rich no more..." THINK ABOUT IT!

all you lefties and statist will truly be screwed... because who's gonna pay all the bills THEN?

Luca Grella said:

"Congratulations, Luca -- I was wondering how long it would be before some essentially-clueless lefty would scream "racist" at anyone opposed to government-run healthcare. "

How do you know that I am pro government health care? Did I even ever mention that?


I raised a moral issue for those who have been left behind by the profit based system and David invited me to leave the country
based on some assumptions about who I am.
He would not ask you to leave the country if you don't think the same way he does.
You (meaning republicans) never get to the issue, you reply by insults and intimidations and by making general ideological statements .

Stay on the issue and answer quite a legitimate question:

Do you think there is a moral responsibility for the people (50,000 a year)
who die for lack of health care??

Is it ok to you Mr Terry Friedrichsen that people die because they cannot afford the treatment?

Answer the question

thanks

OK, As "Luca's 'protagonist'...

1) I invited you to leave if you didn't like a country that was founded on the principles of our profit-oriented, free market republic... Which you clearly stated was "immoral" if it "lets 50,000 people die a year" due to so-called lack of health-care. Them's (still, somewhat) the rules here, and if you don't like those rules, LEAVE. I made no statement, nor implied NONE having anything to do with RACE. It was CLEARLY a statement about the opinion YOU expressed... How could I possibly know anything about you OTHER than the words you typed?

2) Your position: that there is something morally repugnant about someone (such as I in this instance) who OPPOSE ANY form of government mandated healthcare system is what I object to. I'll pay for MY OWN healthcare thank you very much. How about YOU pay for YOURS! Or are you, and the loony left, somehow stating that your position is somehow more moral than mine? That you have a right to STEAL from me and give to yourselves?

Your "question" is a red herring: "Do you think there is a moral responsibility for the people (50,000 a year) who die for lack of health care"? is silly on its face... For starters just where do you make these numbers up?

More importantly, is it your position, as implied by your straw-man question, that ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY should ALWAYS be spent, if it could "save one life"? If so, you are a lunatic, with no sense of reality. If not, then WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? HOW? And, BY WHAT RIGHT?

One could equally ask: "Do you think there is a moral responsibility for the XXX people who die a year due to lack of the best/safest possible car in a crash (e.g. a Mercedes - instead of say, a Hyundai), or to NOT being able to afford the BEST (Organic?) food, or the best possible (college) education (since education correlates well with socio-economic status and longevity), or ... WHATEVER....

We need government, single payer Automobiles! clearly... and Government, single payer food! and... government single payer education! YIKES!

The LOGIC (so-called) of the loony-left is that GOVERNMENT ALWAYS KNOWS BEST. Which is BS. Government knows NOTHING. Only People know things. I don't want OTHER people forcing THEIR values or decisions on ME, any more than you want them forcing THEIRS on YOU!

Live, and LET Live. Emphasis on LET. As in "LET ALONE"!

EVERYTHING government has EVER done has a) cost too much, b) not accomplished what it set out to do, and c) could have been done FAR better and more efficiently by the free market...

Except for 2 things: Killing people, and breaking things... the ONLY things any government (ever) has been supremely effective at.

Mark Rieck said:

Don Barar said:
"The left always lies and cheats."

Amazing. Absolutely amazing that a grown man can spend this much time on the planet and still be so ignorant as to believe only his brand of politicians are honest. It is exactly this sort of ingorance and blind hatred it breeds that forced me to leave the party and become an Independent.

IMHO, the biggest lies being faced by our society today is those on the far right lying to themselves. Attempts to rewrite history are my favorite example. We just wrapped up 8 years of politics where the evidence, not opinion, proved we were lied to regulary...and yet you embarass yourself with such a statement? To top it off, you tip your hand with a bigoted comment as well.

As for bigotry, Luca has touched upon within this thread. I find it incredibly ironic that the person he is discussing his points with used the term "you lefties". That would be side splittingly funny if it weren't so pathetic first because it proves his bigotry in his own words. Can we also assume you would deny the same allegation, yet never even realize your use of 'Hussein' reveals your character to all?

It's no wonder the far right has adopted an agenda of breeding hatred for intellect. Once armed with all the pertinent facts of any given issue, talking points that are effective on those willing to blindly accept either half the story or outright lies crumble like a deck of cards.

Mark:


First, lets review the definition of Bigoted: (all definitions from Wikipedia) 'A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.'

So, just what SPECIFICALLY is NOT "Lefty" about supporting state control and takeover of Healthcare (or for that matter anything else)? That is what the Left has ALWAYS done. It is their "raison d'etre" effectively...

It is, demonstrably and in fact, a LEFTIST position to support Governmental involvement in, or takeover of any economic system or element. Therefore, anyone advocating such positions is, QED, a "leftist"... Contrary to the definition of the term bigoted, this is NOT an "opinion or prejudice" of mine. Therefore it is not "irrational". Rather, it is a FACT. Therefore it cannot be bigoted. (While I grant you I AM most certainly *obstinate* in my statements - so it passed on one of the three essential elements of the definition).

For further clarity and intellectual rigor, lets review the definition of "Leftist", shall we?

Leftist: 'In politics, left-wing, leftist and the Left are generally used to describe support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society.'

OK, pretty simple, though we'd better be clear on what the goal is, namely Egalitarian...

That then requires a definition of Egalitarianism: '(derived from the French word égal, meaning "equal") has two distinct definitions in modern English. It is defined either as a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people.'

Since in America, the Democrats (most, not all) and the "leftists" are in fact NOT fighting for equal RIGHTS, but rather equal RESULTS, clearly the second part of the definition demonstrably holds. After all, it is the RESULTS of our capitalistic system they are ALL railing at and wanting to change because they see them as "unfair", or "immoral" (Luca's argument for example), or because some people, because of freely chosen paths in their lives, will in fact have poorer health results than others...

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that American citizens have a RIGHT to Healthcare. We all have the RIGHT to PURSUE it (as individuals); and that is the distinction of importance in this entire debate.

Those pushing for governmental control of health care want to force an equal RESULT on everyone, which is demonstrably (per above) a "Leftist" political position...

I like to use the term precisely because it effectively and concisely encapsulates the essential aspect of a person making demonstrably LEFTIST economic or political statements.

So much for the argument of "breeding hatred for intellect", huh?...

PS: Don stating the FACT of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's name also disqualifies him from being a "bigot" by the same definitions and logic as laid out above... I.e. the 'inconvenient FACT' that it is his name; hence not "irrational", hence NOT Bigoted...

Mark Rieck said:


Did the government end up taking over our railroads in the long run? Does the government own our steel industry? Of course not, but those were the exact same claims being made then as they are now.

Actually, your point here proves OUR point, Mark...

No, you are right, the government (today) neither owns, nor runs the Steel Industry, nor the Fail industry...

Of course we basically have NO Steel industry LEFT (gee, wonder why?) And our rail infrastructure is a laughing stock compared to all other industrialized countries...

Of course, the Government now "owns" majority of GM though... hmmm... wonder how long GM lasts before it is either a shell of its former self, or carved up and sold off....

We don't want the government taking healthcare over because:

1) it isn't their business - you can say what you want about "constitutional or not"... but just because the people CAN vote the government do do something, doesn't make it a valid GOAL of government...

2) they will BREAK it (heck they already HAVE starting with Medicaid/Medicare and ever since

3) They are DEMONSTRABLY incompetent at doing ANYTHING COST EFFECIVELY, or WELL (with the exception of War, which they do well, but it ain't cost effective).

Anyone remember the Community Reinvestment Act of 1999; designed to ENSURE that underpriviliged and minorities who couldn't afford homes could still buy them? Yep, that "good intentions" led to our financial mortage-"backed" securities Financial crisis... Yet more examples to prove my point.

Just say NO!

Luca Grella said:


<>

My definition is spot on, xenophobia *is* racism , only not "justified" by taxonomic differences.



<>
Obama in the budget of 2011 has tried to create a panel to cut some of those but unfortunately many GOP senators opposed the panel just to deny a victory to the president.
Social security and medicare had a surplus about ten years ago, you must remember that.




<<< Don't steal any more of my money>>>

keep it and spend it on the next stupidest war maybe against Iran



<<>>


so long dear

[/quote]
Luca: you are clearly carrying SOME sort of chip on your shoulder... Go back and read my INITIAL response to your post (the one which prompted YOU to call ME a racist).

There is nothing racist (nor xenophobic) whatsoever in that post. NOTHING. I said if you don't LIKE THE SYSTEM we have here in the US, Leave.

Which is precisely what the last, productive 10-30% of Americans will ultimately have to do if you freaking lefties don't keep destroying what little economic freedom we have left...

Do YOU think it's morally appropriate (to use YOUR approach back to you) that less than half of all working Americans pay ALL the federal taxes for EVERYBODY?

If so, state it. If not, then state what IS morally fair? Is it 75% pay for the other 25%? 99% pay for the other 1%

Where do YOU draw the line, Luca?

And I'll say it again in clear, concise English: I don't know (nor care) what your race or origin are. If you don't LIKE IT HERE, LEAVE. I'd say the same to someone named, "Joe Smith", "Luca Grella", "Mohammed Abdul Jabeez", "Jaime Shalom", "Ito Yamamoto", "Rajisvdec Djyblubluvic" or ANY other "name, nationality, creed, color, etc."

It's an INTELLECTUAL statement, not a RACIST ONE.

BTW: Social Security has NEVER run a "surplus"... the money doesn't exist ANYWHERE REAL... They don't take the taxes and invest them... they take them and SPEND THEM... back when there was a "so called surplus"... all they did with the money that they didn't spend that was above what they were spending was...

Drum roll please...

They spent it on the REST of Government!

Go look it up sometime.

Social Security and Medicaid (and Government health care if they pass it) are a FREAKING PONZI Scheme!

I predict that if the lefties and Democrats ram this through, the following WILL happen:

1) First, they'll get HAMMERED at the polls in 2010
2) If they are hammered ENOUGH to Over-ride a Presidential Veto, it will be 100% repealed in January 2011
3) If they are NOT hammered ENOUGH to over-ride a veto (which'll be hard in the Senate, but not impossible), it'll get tied up in the courts until the 2012 election, when OBAMA will get HAMMERED out of office...

If, by some chance it doesn't play out this way, at some point you WILL see either:

1) a True life, "Atlas Shrugged" moment, and/or
2) a violent protest against the government leading to anarchy
3) or a slow, inexorable decline of what is left of our once great country
4) or some combination of 1-3...