Congress clears historic health care bill...

[sdotcar619]

It's funny how people are saying "if you don't like how the government is running things, then just leave." You guys were the same people crying when BUSH was in office.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by chozin87

I don't have an argument, keep worrying about all the problems holding you down.

When did "awareness" become tantamount to "worrying"?

Ohh and please believe no one is "holding" ME "down"...trust me on that.

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Topherr,

If you want to become a physician dont let this discourage you. For theforeseeable future doctors will still do decent they may not do as wellas they have but will still be decently compensated. Also if your soulreason for going into medicine is money you are in a world of hurt. Acareer in medicine has some definite advantages to it including goodpay, job security but you truly have to love the field to make thosethings worth it. The journey is too long and demanding if you donttruly love what you are doing.

Even though we seem to be at polar ends when it comes to the matter at hand, I think UT speaks the truth here. If you're trying to be a doc for all the right reasons, then DON'T let this affect you. Physicians like you will always be needed...unlike a friend (and I use that term loosely) of mine whose currently at Georgetown's school of Med and is supposedly doing this only for the money--this is based of what she told me herself some time back...

Originally Posted by JD617

The truth is, I love this country more than you do

Probably the most arrogant thing in this thread.



Arrogant--sure, i'll give you that...

Most arrogant thing in the thread--

...because clearly, you have not perused this thread.



...

 

[wawaweewa]

I feel like this thread is a perfect example of:


 

 

[essential1]

SdotCAR619 wrote:

---

It's funny how people are saying "if you don't like how the government is running things, then just leave." You guys were the same people crying when BUSH was in office.
true..

I think the one difference may be one side hates the way a particular administration was running things, and one side hates the government running anything...

That one post about the guy going through his detailed day is priceless. Because the Conservative rant is government shouldn't be at all part of our life except for major things.. Health care is MAJOR. Also they ignore that government is the biggest part of our everyday life. Without government regulations, entitlements, funding, etc. is the reason we can live a free life without a heap of worry (for the most part) and the reason we even have a chance of making it through the day to day without dying (for the most part)...

My life under an involved government > My life under an uninvolved government... Need proof look at Somalia.. They are exactly what Conservative Utopians always cry about. (Everything Conservatives want they pretty much have)

Of course there is an extent to which government involvement should be stopped or not allowed.. Every liberal agrees with that.. but we are nowhere near that point, and even further away from "Destroying America"


"One Nation, Under god with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL"

jus·tice[sup][/sup] 
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.

3. the moral principle determining just conduct.

Rest my case... That is as liberal and progressive as you can get...

[h2]lib·er·al[/h2] –adjective
1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.(often initial capital letter

) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8.open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

 So Burns you ask me what "Liberal, Socialist, or Progressive" thing has ever worked..

My answer AMERICA

 

[essential1]

'Dad, the unfinished business is done'
Son of health reform champion Ted Kennedy leaves note on father's grave

by Philip Rucker and Eli Saslow
updated 3:57 p.m. ET, Tues., March. 23, 2010

WASHINGTON - The political odyssey of health care reform in many ways is the story of Ted Kennedy, and as President Obama signed the historic bill into law Tuesday, Kennedy's gravesite was a place of quiet celebration and poignant reflection.

The late senator's widow, Vicki Reggie Kennedy, spent hours on Sunday at the simple white cross at Arlington National Cemetery marking where her husband was laid to rest only seven months ago. Ted Kennedy's youngest son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), visited on Monday morning and left a hand-written note that read: "Dad, the unfinished business is done."

And on a dreary Tuesday morning, dozens of school children and health care advocates paused at Kennedy's tombstone to commemorate the man who for decades made overhauling the nation's health-care system his life's mission.

Kennedy's legacy was not lost on anyone who filled the East Room of the White House for Obama's bill-signing ceremony. Members of Congress wore blue "TedStrong" wristbands in his honor and posed for pictures with Patrick Kennedy. Caroline Kennedy, the senator's niece, sat in the front row, with other members of the storied family. Vicki Kennedy walked into the room with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Obama received a thunderous applause when he evoked the ghost of Ted Kennedy near the climax of his speech.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...shington_post/?GT1=43001

 

[superflyinchopstickninja]

im not a fan of this bill. just makes things even more expensive when our economy is already suffering. sure id love to help people out, but only those who are already workin their butts off and still cant make it. its those lazy people who do nothing but reap the benefits of welfare programs that i cant stand. its a shame, but we cant just pick and choose they type of people we wanna help.

 

[burns1923]

So Burns you ask me what "Liberal, Socialist, or Progressive" thing has ever worked..

My answer AMERICA

 

[illionaire]

%$$$ just got real.
[h1][/h1]

[h1]14 states sue to block health care law[/h1]
By the CNN Wire Staff

March 23, 2010 7:46 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.

Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.

"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.

The case was filed by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 11 other Republican attorneys general, along with one Democrat. McCollum said the new law also forces states "to do things that are practically impossible to do as a practical matter, and forcing us to do it without giving any resources or money to do it."

McCollum's lawsuit was joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia's attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed a separate case in his state Tuesday afternoon.

All but one of those state officials, Louisiana's Buddy Caldwell, are Republicans. But McCollum said the case is not a partisan issue and predicted other Democrats would join the suit.

"It's a question for most of us in the states of the costs to our people and to the rights and the freedoms of the individual citizens in upholding our constitutional duties as attorneys general," he said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that lawyers have advised the administration it would win the lawsuits. And Democratic Party spokesman Hari Sevugan called the lawsuit "a waste of state funds during the worst economic crisis in a generation."

"The American people don't want any more delay, obstruction or hypocrisy on this. They want thoughtfully implemented reform so that it works for all Americans," Sevugan said.

Renee Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University in Massachusetts, said the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of Americans.

"If the federal courts follow existing precedents of the United States Supreme Court, I don't think that the claims will be successful," Landers told CNN.

Ryan Wiggins, a spokesman for McCollum, said the case was filed in Pensacola because "we were told that out of all of the places to file in Florida, Pensacola would move the quickest on it."

At least one of the officials who signed onto the lawsuit has run into criticism back home. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, criticized Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna for joining the case and said she would actively oppose the suit.

Separately, legislatures in three dozen states are considering proposed legislation aimed at blocking elements of the health care bill. But Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, said the Constitution says laws passed by Congress trump state laws.
"We've got a very conservative Supreme Court, but they're not about to overturn 200 years of Constitutional history and interpretation and declare that the supremacy clause is no longer in effect," Jillson said.


via CNN

 

[throwedindagame]

Originally Posted by superflyinchopstickninja

im not a fan of this bill. just makes things even more expensive when our economy is already suffering. sure id love to help people out, but only those who are already workin their butts off and still cant make it. its those lazy people who do nothing but reap the benefits of welfare programs that i cant stand. its a shame, but we cant just pick and choose they type of people we wanna help.

This.

I'll help those who tried, i.e. you made an effort to get a job or are currently working and struggling to make ends meet.
I'll help those who are disabled, old, minors, etc..

The able bodied lazy leaches though

Unfortunately, the government programs are indiscriminate redistribution of wealth that we have no control over.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Burns1923


Well, I'll put it this way:  I think viewpoints from both sides have been stated and re-stated.  It's clear that you're not interested in respecting anyone's beliefs or positions, and only interested in being combative for the sake of it.

Me...combative...

...fam, while the matter at hand is controversial, it is not that serious. We are not in a boxing ring slugging it out for 12 rounds; we're merely having an e-conversation/discussion over the internet. Calm down...

Dude, I stated my viewpoint in my OG post. Since then, I've mostly been reading what everyone has had to say. You really have some nerve in questioning my respect for others opinions when I've had a total of 17 posts (19 including this one and the one before this) to the 40+ posts you've had (yes I counted...

) going back and forth, within this thread, with various individuals who had opposing viewpoints from your own. The nerve...

...

Don't condescend to me.  Typical Saul Alinsky-iteb.s. from you over and over:  ridicule, attack, repeat.  And as long asyou continue to view yourself as a victim, your life will go nowhere. Have fun being perpetually angry at someone.  You know nothingof my background.  Grow up - everyone that doesn't agree with speciallittle you isn't "wrong" or "bad" or "misinformed" or "uniformed" or"racist" or any other whiny adjective you want to puke out.  Go crysomewhere else. 

Ok so I'll tell you a lil secret: I have no idea who this Saul Alinsky character is. Sorry to break it to you.

Furthermore, why do y'all like equating awareness with "anger" and "worrying"...sheesshhh...I state what essentially amounts to the history of race and class relations in this country and I'm dubbed "angry" and perceived as "worrying"...y'all must really despise American history huhhh?

Actually, I know a lil something about your background...

"Grow up- everyone that doesn't agree with special little you isn't...."...that's especially funny coming from you--the guy whose bickered with others in this thread at twice the rate that I have...

There you go, assuming you know things.  Hey, bud, news flash: LIFEis unfair.  All of us are on our own.  God gave us a life and it's upto us to try to do something with it.  I love playing basketball andwanted to play in the NBA when I was a kid.  Guess what?  I'm not goodenough to play professionally.  I wasn't born with the talent to makeit.  Am I whining about how the NBA and NCAA is riggest and bias andunfair?  Nope.  It is what it is.  The guys who are there deserve to bethere because they maximized their talent by working their %*##* off. Like I said, if you're going to continue to be a whiny baby, you'llalways be playing catch up.  No one owes me #$!+, and no one owes you#$!+.


I'm sorry you weren't good enough to play in the NBA. I'm sorry you weren't TALL enough, FAST enough, STRONG enough, and SKILLED enough with a basketball. Your inability to play a sport at the professional level boils down to your deficiency as a physical specimen. The requirements needed to play professionally are straight forward, and easily tested. You either have it or you don't. It's black and white--no grey area. The bias here is very justified. Now tell me, what are the black and white requirements needed to become "rich". What's this formula so I can try it myself?

Also, you not "whining" about the NBA and NCAA being rigged and being unfair is not because "it is what it is"--it's because there's really nothing YOU can "whine" about. You simply failed to measure up as a physical specimen, literally and figuratively speaking. Point blank. Had you been the tallest, and the fastest, and the strongest, and the most skilled candidate ever to set foot on an NBA/NCAA court during tryouts and you still got turned away, then you'd have something to whine about because clearly, there is some bias going on. But as previously stated, that is simply not the case. You're neither in the NBA nor the NCAA because, simply stated, you're a poor physical specimen relative to those that actually play at those levels.

ANSWER:  The "playing field" is uneven because lifeis uneven.  People have extremely different personalities, gifts,talents, choices, surroundings.  All of that and more factors into whypeople's lives take the paths they do.  You can't ignore all of thisand say "Well, nobody's helping me, nobody's doing x or y for me,people are keeping me down."  Contrary to your viewpoint, the majorityof Americans aren't a disenfranchised, oppressed victimhood.  No one'slife is a cakewalk, no matter their race, age, gender, or location.

That's rich...

I specifically ask you why AMERICA as a nation, as the playing field, is uneven, and you give the most vague and illusive answer that can be given to such a question: "because life is unfair"...you're such a joke...

Yes,

people tend to have "extremely different personalities, gifts,talents, choices, surroundings" and all of that does "factor into whypeople's lives take the paths they do". But you'd be a fool to ignore the very real fact that certain populations have been historically victimized and said victimization has had a profound effect on the personalities, choices, surroundings, and "paths" of present day individuals that would belong to the historically victimized population. That's what you don't get and that's why I pity you.

Sure, no ones life is a "cake-walk"; but as previously mentioned, if you're an able-bodied, white, heterosexual, christian, male--then you can be rest assured that at the end of your walk, if you've done all that you were supposed to do, then you'll have the biggest cake waiting for you. The same cannot be said, however, if you fall outside of any one of those categories.

I'll go one further: NOTHING"guarantees" success, financial or otherwise.  Your premise is wrong. By definition, America IS a meritocracy in structure but there is nocertain formula for achievement or success.  True story: I busted my@%# in college.  Did the work, made the grades, did what I could toprepare myself.  Got out and boom - nothing.  No job opportunities forme.  Everyone wanted me to have some kind of extra "experience", alwaysvague and always elusive.  It is only recently - many years after allthat - that I'm getting my sea legs in my career.  Believe me - I wascompletely thrown off by the career delay.  I blamed the university, Iblamed employers, I blamed others, I blamed myself.  Bottom line isthat is just didn't work out.  It sucked, but everyone's life sucksfrom time to time.  The question is what do you do when those timescome?  Point the finger or keep trying because there's nothing else youcan do.  I opted for the latter.  The former only destroys your life.

America is NOT a meritocracy. America is a democracy. The two are NOT the same thing.

Though, I will say that in certain instances, like within a company, there are few instances of meritocracy. But that all disappears as you move higher within the company hierarchy.

Your "true story" brought tears to my eyes...really...it was a cool story...you should tell it again bro...

This country was constructed for the benefit and privilege of people that look like you (word to you being Irish); your inability to take advantage of that privilege is no concern and/or care of mine. I mean, are you like for real here?...

And of course you blamed the University, the employers, and others (first) before blaming yourself (second). After all, you've been raised to believe that good things would be waiting for you after "doing what you were supposed to do".

Perhaps, had been clued in on the fact that graduating college as best as you could was only a quarter of the battle, you may have been better prepared for the reality. BTW, an example of said reality is the fact that, in this economy, a black man with a college degree and no criminal record has about as much chance--if not less/lower--of landing a job as a white man who was recently released from jail.

So yeah, like I said, cool story bro. You almost sound like one of those people who complain about affirmative action...

No, you don't agree with my view on healthcare andcan't accept the fact that there are people who don't think like youwant them to, so you can't let it go and focus on living your ownlife.  And, um... I do care about the financial well-being of myselfand my family.  You hate the "rich" because they have what you and Idon't:  financial freedom and power.  I think I can get there and maybeI won't but I'll try.  If I fail to reach a goal, I'll take fullresponsibility.


You're right, it does bother me that there are in fact people out there who find it bothersome and vexing that health care is now being made available to millions of Americans who were previously without.

One--I don't hate the rich.

Two-- don't be credulous enough to think and/or believe that we both desire the same things, i.e- financial freedom and power. I don't care much for "riches" and I have all the freedom and power I would ever need in my life, right now at this very moment.

If I could take a trip into American history to converse with ONE individual--it'd be Henry David Thoreau. That revelation should give you an idea of the type of individual I am, and quite possible, the intangible things that I value.

Enjoy your rat race.

The thing is, nobody on earth is in aposition or is in authority to decide who is "privileged" and whoisn't.  It's none of my business what people do in their lives.  Ihandle mine.  What it seems you're saying is that really there are 2entitled classes: an over-entitled class (who have wealth and success,which they inherently don't "deserve") and the under-entitled class(who have a severe lack of wealth and "deserve" more). 

Andyou're misusing words there.  "Sociological" pertains to sociology, thestudy of society.  It can't be used to describe logic in society.  And"logically sound on the grammatical level."  Huh?  Your idea
is logically sound on a system-of-inflection-and-syntax level? 

Get your eraser and try that again.

I'm not personally deciding who has been privileged and who has not. History has already done that for me. I've merely recapitulated historical fact--that which concerns those dynamics that have existed between the various races, classes, and populations coinciding on/in this land known as the United States.

The truth, which is bitter medicine for you, is that the privileged and over-privileged have endured in this country, and continue to do so, only through the suffering, subjugation, and exploitation of an under-privileged class, race, and population. It's the gospel truth which you are willingly clueless of because you've purposely made it "none of [your] business...." Me, I am too much of a humanitarian to let ishhh like that slide by. Hopefully, you can find it in your heart to pardon me for caring so much...

Don't even attempt to school me on the English language bro'. I know more about this language than you do even though I am not a native speaker...

. I didn't misuse any words, rather I played with them. There's a reason why there's a dash between "socio" and "logical" in the original context, and guess what--you apprehended that reason quite well, word to you understanding that I meant to describe logic in a society.

Also, grammar essentially refers to the rules governing language. If it's stated that something is over-privileged, then it's also implied/suggested that, correspondingly, something is under-privileged. But you know what though, I aint even mad that something like that would slip by you. After all, calling a carry on a ******ed kid while you're playing basketball with them is just not the right thing to do...

...so don't even worry about it.

No. We live in a nation where bias exists,prejudice exists, and corruption exists., just as they do around theworld.  These happen everywhere.  If I may ask, are you black?  I askbecause the answer may possibly clear your perspective up for me a bitmore.  Regardless, life is tough all around.  Plenty of people thinkthey have it the worst.  It doesn't mean they aren't facing realchallenges but the answer to those problems isn't penalizing others whohave nothing to do with us.

Actually, I'm Scotch-Korean. I've stated that I am black in the past threads only because I wanted a free pass at voicing my opinion without having to hear something along the line of: "you're not even black so you wouldn't even know what it's like."

And this is why I think you're sad--the fact that you equate "

what I would hope for is that, the greatlyand unfairly privileged realize and recognize those that are strugglingand at the other end of the spectrum. What I would hope for is that,people will realize that in order for the "UNDER-privileged" class toexist, there hasssssss to be a class that is correspondingly"OVER-privileged" to some kind of punishment and/or penalization.

Making others aware does not = penalization.

Seeing life through a different set of eyes, an under-privileged one, is not a sentence or penalty. Please understand this. How can we hope for world peace, an end to starvation and poverty when y'all cant even bring y'all-selves to view life through the eyes of those that are afflicted. Likewise, how can we hope for equality on the religious, racial, gender, sexual-orientation sort if you cant even view life through the eyes of those who live that life without assuming it's some kind of penalty...

...but I guess I forgot that you could not care less about another, word to "It's none of my business what people do in their lives."

There is absolutely no way you canclaim with certainty that you love America more than myself or anyoneelse.  Don't embarrass yourself.  Like I said, the country will neverbe to your liking.  The country will never guarantee you anythingbecause it's never guaranteed anyone anything.  Again, life doesn'tguarantee anything.  Not everybody is going to succeed.  Some don'thave the talent, some don't have the will, some don't have theeducation.  The stark reality is that life truly is every man forhimself. 

You're right--I fibbed a little. I don't so much love America as I care, rather, about the people (and their social well-being) inside America. I'm with you that "not everyone is going to succeed". That said, I think it's totally wrong that a large percentage of those who will attain success, would've done so only because they had a head start in a race that effectively determines so much of your social and financial place/standing in life.

In other words, if you're going to have us all in a rat race, make it so that we all start at the same time, and at the same place. Make it so that I can go through this race without having to deal with obstacles that pertain directly to my race, gender, sexual-orientation, religion, and physical normality. This, especially when others are being allowed to progress in the race without having to deal with any of these obstacles.



...

 

[duba169]

nothing got real. theres nothing unconstitutional about the government evoking a tax. nothing will come of those rogue states. that's a big reason why it was all phrased as a tax. theres legal precedent.

 

[rexanglorum]

That is such a strawman, in the rhetoric of most "progressives" you would think any one who is opposed to the size, scope and nature government expansion is an anarchist. Virtually no one is calling for NO Government at all. The question is about to what degree and in what ways should government play a role and where and when should it not play a role.

Government does provide some real public goods, considering how much it gets in tax revenue, it had better. However, even when it does deliver its product is costly and/or of low quality and we see that in DMV's, the Post Office, the insolvency of entitlement programs and the dismal state of public education for far too many poor children.

There is also the fear that government is moving from an entity that redistributes some wealth, here and there, into a an entity that looking to create a majority voter bloc, that is united by dependence on gov't. Through welfare, through controlling student loans, through health care rationing, through its decision to keep adding more and more people to its tax payer funded payrolls, our government is becoming an entioty which will eventually cannibalize itself. The bigger it gets, the more it will smoother the private sector and eventually the private sector will be bled white and our fate will be insolvency, hyperinflation, loss of sovereignty, punishing taxation and a sudden end to entitlement benefits.

Health care in America needed fixing but this new legislation is primarily about control, the control that comes from, within a decade or so, allowing the Federal government access to all of our private medical information and control over who gets medical care and who does not. It is well known that people who criticize sitting presidents have been known to be repeated subject to "random audits" year after year. The ability to murder a political opponent while he is in the hospital is a powerful tool which will have a chilling effect on future criticisms of our so called "public servants."

 

[burns1923]

Ok so I'll tell you a lil secret: I have no idea who this Saul Alinsky character is. Sorry to break it to you.

No?  Look him up.  Our president taught Alinsky's marxist philosophy in Chicago as a community organizer.

"Seventeen years later, another young honor student was offered a job as an organizer in Chicago. By then, Alinsky had died, but a group of his disciples hired Barack Obama, a 23-year-old Columbia University graduate, to organize black residents on the South Side, while learning and applying Alinsky's philosophy of street-level democracy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html


But none of that background or philosophy is informing anything he's doing in the White House.  Surely not.

Actually, I know a lil something about your background...

Nope.

I specifically ask you why AMERICA as a nation, as the playing field, is uneven, and you give the most vague and illusive answer that can be given to such a question: "because life is unfair"...you're such a joke...

Maybe the answer was too simple for you to grasp.  Either that or else you simply don't live in mainstream reality.  I'd place my bets on the latter. 

You want to believe that everyone who doesn't get ahead is held down by another, either through oppression, racism, etc.  Have fun looking at life like that.

Keep up the name calling.  It adds a great deal of insight and intellectual integrity to the conversation.

Yes, people tend to have "extremely different personalities, gifts, talents, choices, surroundings" and all of that does "factor into why people's lives take the paths they do". But you'd be a fool to ignore the very real fact that certain populations have been historically victimized and said victimization has had a profound effect on the personalities, choices, surroundings, and "paths" of present day individuals. That's what you don't get and that's why I pity you.

The "historical victimization.. of certain populations" you speak of is NOT the American experience at large.  You're right, that has taken place.  But to attempt to apply that to the masses is simply to create a population of victims who, rather than employ self-reliance first, would find it easier to sponge off of others, who have "too much" and must have it snatched out of their hands.  I "get" it alright - you just refuse to let someone else's viewpoints simply be. That's what you don't get and that's why I pity you.

Don't even attempt to school me on the English language bro'. I know more about this language than you do. I didn't misuse any words, rather I played with them. There's a reason why there's a dash between socio and logical in the original context, and guess what--you apprehended that reason quite well, word to you understanding that I meant to describe logic in a society.

I didn't attempt.  You were schooled.  Journalist here with eight years of experience.

If you took what you wrote to a copy editor, you'd be looked at as unprofessional, and possibly lose your next story.

You should be embarrassed trying to cover for yourself on that.


Another lesson:  you being "combative" isn't a reference to actual hand-to-hand combat. Come on now.

"Combative", as in "ready or inclined to fight; pugnacious: He displayed a most unpleasant, combative attitude."

Look, you want to keep up the back-and-forth, we can do that.  Don't know what else can be said.  I know you refuse to simply agree to disagree.

From what I've read, I don't agree with you on anything except that health care costs should be lower.  But I'm not sweating our differences.  Is what it is.

 

[strawberry milkshakes]

This debate couldn't be more clear cut, yet you dudes have argued for about 10 pages over and about nothing. A complete waste. It all comes down to this:

Republicans or conservatives are fundamentally against helping the poor out because they blame the poor for well...being poor.
We went through this in the 1980's with Regan and "Welfare Queens." 2010 is no different.

The poor, (coincidentally a large portion of the minorities in America? I'll let you tell it) have always been demonized into being lazy and unintelligent people who suck up America's resources by conservatives. Republicans and or Conservatives will never be for any kind of government aid in helping minorities/ the lower income bracket out. Whether it's welfare or healthcare. They feel they deserve to be poor and they should "pull them selves up by their bootstraps if they don't like their life."

The End. Arguing against this is like hoping to crack a brick wall with you forehead. They have their principles and they stand by them.

I must say that I find it funny that a lot of people in this thread speak of people on welfare as if they actually live in any kind of area with a high poverty rate. You dudes proclaim that "black people/ poor minorites aren't hard workers who sit around and wait for checks" as if you actually know any of these people's lives outside of the 10 o clock news and The Wire.

Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in public housing is dealing dope, eating fried chicken, and waiting by the mailbox to spend their checks on gucci purses but You cant tell any of you smart dumb dudes anything.

 

[davidisgodly]

Could someone please explain to me, how we are going to spend 980 Billion on health care and somehow save money in the long run. Please explain this.... It really doesn't make sense.


Btw, I don't see why doctors would be bickering over this, they make more money now IMO

 

[i need sole]

Originally Posted by davidisgodly

Could someone please explain to me, how we are going to spend 980 Billion on health care and somehow save money in the long run. Please explain this.... It really doesn't make sense.


Btw, I don't see why doctors would be bickering over this, they make more money now IMO

ehhhh, i'm interested in seeing how the bill would affect those in the field of medicine. can we even produce enough doctors here in the states to keep up with the demand? let alone nurses and other professionals.

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

That is such a strawman, in the rhetoric of most "progressives" you would think any one who is opposed to the size, scope and nature government expansion is an anarchist. Virtually no one is calling for NO Government at all. The question is about to what degree and in what ways should government play a role and where and when should it not play a role.

Government does provide some real public goods, considering how much it gets in tax revenue, it had better. However, even when it does deliver its product is costly and/or of low quality and we see that in DMV's, the Post Office, the insolvency of entitlement programs and the dismal state of public education for far too many poor children.

There is also the fear that government is moving from an entity that redistributes some wealth, here and there, into a an entity that looking to create a majority voter bloc, that is united by dependence on gov't. Through welfare, through controlling student loans, through health care rationing, through its decision to keep adding more and more people to its tax payer funded payrolls, our government is becoming an entioty which will eventually cannibalize itself. The bigger it gets, the more it will smoother the private sector and eventually the private sector will be bled white and our fate will be insolvency, hyperinflation, loss of sovereignty, punishing taxation and a sudden end to entitlement benefits.

Health care in America needed fixing but this new legislation is primarily about control, the control that comes from, within a decade or so, allowing the Federal government access to all of our private medical information and control over who gets medical care and who does not. It is well known that people who criticize sitting presidents have been known to be repeated subject to "random audits" year after year. The ability to murder a political opponent while he is in the hospital is a powerful tool which will have a chilling effect on future criticisms of our so called "public servants."

Always enjoy your viewpoints Rex. I agree with the growing gov't problem. It's a testament to the elite's grasp on gov't/corporate America and the vulnerability of the common people.

 

[jaysrcrak]

I do not understand how some of you guys are coming on here talking about "I don't like this bill", "I don't want to pay for lazy people", I work hard why should I pay for someone who doesn't and sit on their but all day?" And on and on and on.

In America it is illeagl to refuse medical help to someone who needs it at the emergency room.


You are already paying for the lazy people and other who take advantage of the system. That's the whole point.
That's why your premiums continue to rise.

From my understanding the gov't will MANDATE that we all have insurance or a pay a penalty.

How does that translate into YOU paying for lazy people? YOU will not have to pay another person's penalties. You will not have to pay their premiums.

What are YOU complaining about? Taxes?

If it's the taxes you don't like get over it.

If your boss came to you today and said starting tomorrow you are getting a raise and your salary will be tripled, but the only catch is you have to pay more taxes.
Nobody in this thread would turn down the job. No matter how much money you make right now.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

So Burns you ask me what "Liberal, Socialist, or Progressive" thing has ever worked..

My answer AMERICA

Conservative is  is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and that society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were..

America was a copy of early Roman governments but their tradition was British Government...

Soooooooooooo if American was a conservative idea it would have been under the form of British government....

Where as it wasn't even close.... It was of progressive ideas unheard of at the time, and seen as ridiculous by outsiders......

So maybe learn your history, and your meaning of words because you don't know what the hell you are talking about

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by xilegacy

People are going to abuse it like everything else they abuse the govt helps with. 
basically, but insurance screws people regardless. hard to pick sides but I think reform would be the better of 2 evils.
also, sorry for my lack of intelligence 

, but I'm a bit lost.

I have a pre existing condition... should I go deal with that now before these states sue?, is the change already in effect?

can/should I ask these questions to my health care provider? if not, where can we go for up to date information?

can we create a separate thread for information and questions like these?




thank you

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

the Post Office

Post Office has a problem with their money

but the service they give is better than UPS and Fedex gives..

Typically gets packages on equal or quicker time than UPS and Fedex.

Where UPS and Fedex do have things they do well like the transport of large packages that USPS can't.

And if you are sending a letter it costs $.44 far better than UPS and Fedex..

You have an issue with new technology that has trouble competing with because sending letters is becoming more and more obsolete but it has been around for a long time and has provided great service. But like most liberal ideologists after a certain amount of time every institution needs reform because times change so programs must change with it..

 

[jaysrcrak]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by xilegacy

People are going to abuse it like everything else they abuse the govt helps with. 

basically, but insurance screws people regardless. hard to pick sides but I think reform would be the better of 2 evils.
also, sorry for my lack of intelligence 

, but I'm a bit lost.

I have a pre existing condition... should I go deal with that now before these states sue?, is the change already in effect?

can/should I ask these questions to my health care provider? if not, where can we go for up to date information?

can we create a separate thread for information and questions like these?




thank you



If I'm not mistaken this change takes effect pretty quickly. Within the next 90 days

 

[cparkfresh]

Burns1923

Obama with the shots fired!

 

[cparkfresh]

Burns1923

Do you remember how the stuff you were spewing about the majority of Americans being against the bill?

According to a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted the day after health care legislation passed the House of Representatives, 49 percent of the respondents think the passage of reform is a "good thing," compared to the 40 percent who think it is bad.

 

[burns1923]

Originally Posted by Essential1


Conservative is  is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and that society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were..

America was a copy of early Roman governments but their tradition was British Government...

Soooooooooooo if American was a conservative idea it would have been under the form of British government....

Where as it wasn't even close.... It was of progressive ideas unheard of at the time, and seen as ridiculous by outsiders......

So maybe learn your history, and your meaning of words because you don't know what the hell you are talking about

"Despite their theological differences, virtually all the founders maintained that morality depended on religion (which for them meant Christianity). They were convinced that their new republic could succeed only if its citizens were virtuous. For both ideological and pragmatic reasons, the founders opposed establishing one denomination as a national church. However, they provided public support of Christianity through various means, including establishing Christian denominations at the state level, passing state laws restricting public office holding to Christians and punishing blasphemy, issuing proclamations of thanksgiving to God and calls for fasting, using federal money to finance missions to Indians, and permitting Christian congregations to use governmental facilities, both at the state and federal level, for their worship services."   - Gary Scott Smith 

Your ideology is so cultish, so desperate, that you look at everything as liberal or progressive. 

And don't even think of turning around and saying that Christianity is progressive.

It is you who's been throwing around crackpot history.  Totally blinded by ideology and unable to participate in reality long enough to get your facts right.

Anything else to say?  Or do you want to keep this up?