Is Barack the Change his Brothers are Waiting For?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
nephorm wrote:

I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.

And still waiting on that enumerated power.[/quote]

If you gentlemen are looking for some sort of perfect government that would perfectly run a healthcare policy, you’ll never find one. In reality we don’t have such things. What we have is a reality, is a world in which every first-world nation save the United States has universal health care. None are perfect, some do it well, some do it poorly. Some of these nations pay more taxes than the US some pay less.

You all seem to think that America is exceptional because it won’t be able to do that which every other first world nation has done. I disagree. I think American’s can solve any problem we put our mind to. I’ve no doubt we can create a system that will be the envy of the world (making the world even more envious of us).

Why universal healthcare? Why should the government be involved? Because the market hasn’t and because the government can. Because it will improve our society and our economy. Because a healthy population is a more productive workforce and a larger labor force. And simply because it’s the right thing to do. “Anything you did for even the least of my people here, you also did for me.” Matthew 25:40

If you folks see a market solution to this issue, or a way civil society can solve the problem of uninsured and under-insured, put it forward. I haven’t heard anything yet. It’s right to question how to pay for policies, but it’s not right to assume the US cannot do what so many other nations have done. It’s easy to criticize, it’s easy to say “the govt shouldn’t be involved” but unless you’re simultaneously explaining how the market or civil society can solve the problem, you’re just being a hater.

We’ve been striving for a more perfect union since this great country began, this is another step.

122

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
nephorm wrote:

I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.

And still waiting on that enumerated power.

If you gentlemen are looking for some sort of perfect government that would perfectly run a healthcare policy, you’ll never find one. In reality we don’t have such things. What we have is a reality, is a world in which every first-world nation save the United States has universal health care. None are perfect, some do it well, some do it poorly. Some of these nations pay more taxes than the US some pay less.

You all seem to think that America is exceptional because it won’t be able to do that which every other first world nation has done. I disagree. I think American’s can solve any problem we put our mind to. I’ve no doubt we can create a system that will be the envy of the world (making the world even more envious of us).

Why universal healthcare? Why should the government be involved? Because the market hasn’t and because the government can. Because it will improve our society and our economy. Because a healthy population is a more productive workforce and a larger labor force. And simply because it’s the right thing to do. “Anything you did for even the least of my people here, you also did for me.” Matthew 25:40

If you folks see a market solution to this issue, or a way civil society can solve the problem of uninsured and under-insured, put it forward. I haven’t heard anything yet. It’s right to question how to pay for policies, but it’s not right to assume the US cannot do what so many other nations have done. It’s easy to criticize, it’s easy to say “the govt shouldn’t be involved” but unless you’re simultaneously explaining how the market or civil society can solve the problem, you’re just being a hater.

We’ve been striving for a more perfect union since this great country began, this is another step.

[/quote]

You’re not really gonna use the bible as an example of the right thing to do? LOL!!!

There’s another old saying:

If you’re not a liberal at 20 you’ve got no heart and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you’ve got no brains.

123

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

If you gentlemen are looking for some sort of perfect government that would perfectly run a healthcare policy, you’ll never find one. In reality we don’t have such things. What we have is a reality, is a world in which every first-world nation save the United States has universal health care. None are perfect, some do it well, some do it poorly. Some of these nations pay more taxes than the US some pay less. [/quote]

This is all a red herring to the issue of whether the federal government has been granted the power to institute such a program.

You are saying we should have a program. That isn’t the initial question raised above - that question is not whether we should, but whether the government can.

So, show me.

At least be original - and stop parroting Barack Obama’s material from Saddleback.

Where to begin?

First of all, an answer to your question:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121979878425975047.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Second, as to what other countries have done, it is often a useful comparison, but it is foolish to treat unlike things alike. For example, European countries enjoy lavish spending on cradle-to-grave government programs largely because they benefit from the defense subsidy of the US and NATO. Not having to maintain a typical national security profile allows more spending on things like universal health care - an advantage the US does not enjoy. As an example.

Another issue to consider when examining what other countries have done is the state of their health care - and if you look closely, you won’t like what you see.

And to close on this point - but unless you’re simultaneously explaining how the market or civil society can solve the problem, you’re just being a hater. - seriously? What are you, 12?

A more perfect union means a number of things - I expect it doesn’t mean bankrupting our public fisc with an unsustainable entitlement program that has no inherent controls to keep down costs, nor does it mean creating/reinforcing the moral hazard of a culture that already taking stupid risks with its health (see obesity).

But, then again, maybe I am just hatin’.

124

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< This is all a red herring to the issue of whether the federal government has been granted the power to institute such a program.

You are saying we should have a program. That isn’t the initial question raised above - that question is not whether we should, but whether the government can.

So, show me. >>>[/quote]

People don’t care anymore.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< European countries enjoy lavish spending on cradle-to-grave government programs largely because they benefit from the defense subsidy of the US and NATO. >>>[/quote]

That is exactly right and a fantastic point. For everybody’s pissing and moaning about our meddling in the world, let them imagine what they would do without us. Better yet, if it weren’t for our own interests (yes that’s what it’s ALWAYS ALL ABOUT for every nation) I’d be tempted to let them find out. We have spent more money and blood on the rest of world militarily and from a humanitarian standpoint than every other nation in the history of the world combined.

125

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I was just queasily watching that despicable slug Ted Kennedy.

Health care is neither a right nor a privilege. It’s a market service and is not the government’s job to provide it. This is another whole humongous topic. The issues with healthcare are related to the obscenely inflated costs that make it necessary for yet another scam we know as insurance whereby somebody not you is responsible for paying it.

There’s a whole host of reasons why this is so. In any case one surefire way to be certain it gets worse is to put this obese waddling bureaucracy in charge. However it’s disastrous record of failure with social programs won’t stop the government worshipers from hoping it becomes a reality.

I may be making a mistake, but I’ll tell you people some more personal information about myself.

I have never cleared more than 28,000 dollars in a year, have no access to healthcare and am currently a laid off computer technician trying to start a business. We are every month pennies away from losing our house quite literally.

I have A LOT to personally gain from all this big government bullshit, but I do not want it. I want to be left the hell alone to make my own frickin way like this country once promised without some plastic smiling bureaucratic suit up my ass trying to “help” me.

[/quote]

Damn, if only I could organize a post like this.

126

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

If you folks see a market solution to this issue, or a way civil society can solve the problem of uninsured and under-insured, put it forward. I haven’t heard anything yet. It’s right to question how to pay for policies, but it’s not right to assume the US cannot do what so many other nations have done. It’s easy to criticize, it’s easy to say “the govt shouldn’t be involved” but unless you’re simultaneously explaining how the market or civil society can solve the problem, you’re just being a hater.

[/quote]

This may just be my 15 year’s of age experience talking, but wouldn’t a great solution to people without health-care be to stop taking on unnecessary financial burdens that they cannot afford (Having children is a good example) , and perhaps getting another job or actually working on improving their lot in life so that they can reap the benefits of health-care and insurance?

127

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Brain-surgeon, you hear that sound? That’d be the point flying over your head. “market forces would have acted,” No shit ex lax. That’s the whole point. The organization lost a skill set and suffered for a time because of it. [/quote]

Your point was that certain skill sets are irreplaceable. I showed you that you were wrong. Poor management is not the same thing as irreplaceability. If you actually owned a business you would probably understand this. Evidently you don’t, so you can’t.

You should really go back and read what you have written in the past before showing your stupidity like this.

Who said otherwise? even with my boyfriend’s nuts lodged in the back of my throat, I know that the market adjusts and loses very little, if any, in the process. What excuse do you have for your ignorance?

Is this the same lady who was whining and bitching about open minded debate just a couple of days ago?

Hypocrite much?

I have no idea where you live. I know exactly where I live, and I agree with you on this 100%.

It must be really hard to take when my elementary level arguments are kicking your ass, huh? I only bring enough to do the job. If you want to see a better performance out of me - bring more than than this sorry excuse of a post.

I love how you have to fake my voice to launch into what you have been wanting to say all along. You don’t fool anyone - certainly not me.

[quote]Hey rainjack, figuring out yet why no one takes you seriously?
[/quote]

I love getting in the heads of self-important know-it-alls such as yourself. You fake so badly it is actually entertaining to see.

You’re probably one of the funnest, because no one has ever been so nutless as to “channel” my voice. Too bad you don’t have the smarts to match the voice.

128

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Pookie is the one guilty of a strawman, if anyone is.[/quote]

Wait… what? Where did I make that nice straw man?

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

This is all a red herring to the issue of whether the federal government has been granted the power to institute such a program.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that congress doesn’t have the authority to pass a healthcare bill?

[quote]You are saying we should have a program. That isn’t the initial question raised above - that question is not whether we should, but whether the government can.

So, show me.
[/quote]

Again, why do you think the US can’t do what every other first world nation has done?

[quote]
And simply because it’s the right thing to do. “Anything you did for even the least of my people here, you also did for me.” Matthew 25:40

At least be original - and stop parroting Barack Obama’s material from Saddleback.
[/quote] Didn’t watch Saddleback. It’s still the right thing to do. I often use the gospels or allude to them, especially when making moral arguments to fellow Christians. Seems a good thing to do. If you’re the religious sort, you know that Jesus constantly preached about helping the poor. I’m arguing that we should look for new ways to follow his teachings.

Good article. The freedom to buy insurance across state lines sounds like a good idea. But I still don’t believe it would achieve universal coverage alone. Regardless, the article makes a good case.

These are both valid points. However, as mentioned above, some countries do pay less in taxes than the US and some countries do have rather good healthcare. No where is perfect, and every country must make a policy that will fit its particular needs. Not only can it be done, but it has been done in every first world country except for ours.

[quote]
And to close on this point - but unless you’re simultaneously explaining how the market or civil society can solve the problem, you’re just being a hater. - seriously? What are you, 12?[/quote]

11 actually.

[quote]

We’ve been striving for a more perfect union since this great country began, this is another step.

A more perfect union means a number of things - I expect it doesn’t mean bankrupting our public fisc with an unsustainable entitlement program that has no inherent controls to keep down costs, nor does it mean creating/reinforcing the moral hazard of a culture that already taking stupid risks with its health (see obesity).

But, then again, maybe I am just hatin’.[/quote] I don’t agree with your assumptions. I think a policy can be crafted that is fiscally sustainable and has inherent controls to keep down costs. Moral hazard is always a concern, but policies can minimize the problem. No policy or government will be perfect. But I think it can be done and should be done. If the market or civil society can accomplish that goal, then I’d be happy, but I haven’t heard a proposal yet.

130

An interesting article from yesterdays WSJ

Ranks of Uninsured Fell in '07, Census Says
By CONOR DOUGHERTY and JANE ZHANG
August 27, 2008; Page A3

The number of Americans without health insurance fell in 2007, thanks largely to government insurance programs offsetting declines in private-sector coverage, the Census Bureau said.

The report, an annual snapshot of living standards, also showed that income in the typical U.S. household remained lower than in 2000, despite six years of economic expansion.

131

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
An interesting article from yesterdays WSJ

Ranks of Uninsured Fell in '07, Census Says
By CONOR DOUGHERTY and JANE ZHANG
August 27, 2008; Page A3

The number of Americans without health insurance fell in 2007, thanks largely to government insurance programs offsetting declines in private-sector coverage, the Census Bureau said.

The report, an annual snapshot of living standards, also showed that income in the typical U.S. household remained lower than in 2000, despite six years of economic expansion.[/quote]

I don’t believe in insurance at all, government or otherwise. AHHHHHHHHH!!! How the hell you can you say that!!! How are people supposed to get health care?

We have surrendered so completely to the idea of pooled resources and convoluted financial credit schemes like the myth of home ownership it is truly pathetic. And then people whine about the giant corporations. I,m not sure how else it should have gone, but this debt driven musical dollars world economy can’t be the best we can do.

You should take heart though. Swami Obami told us last night that we are our brother’s keeper. OOPS, wait a minute. Not HIS brother.

132

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You see, these realizations occur when you’re working in the private sector and can look at the big picture.

Maybe you will learn how to do that some day. Your example is weak at best. Any business owner would tell you that.

If they were truly that hard up for help - they could have paid more money for the help. They evidently didn’t lose as much as you think they did, or market forces would have acted, and they would have adjusted what they were willing to pay in exchange for the services of the nurses.

I don’t really know what your function is in the health care industry, but I certainly hope you are not representative of the management ability.

channels rainjack’s voice

Brain-surgeon, you hear that sound? That’d be the point flying over your head. “market forces would have acted,” No shit ex lax. That’s the whole point. The organization lost a skill set and suffered for a time because of it.

If you could get your peanut-sized nuts out of your boyfriend’s mouth for long enough to concentrate, you’d realize labor is subject to the same market forces as anything else. Labor isn’t infinite, skilled labor isn’t infinite, and entrepreneurship certainly is not.

Where do you think we live? Some third-world shit hole where 1/2 the population is still pseudo-employed in agriculture? This is America baby. Where we have an educated population, skilled jobs, the best entrepreneurs and a bright future.

You think the American people don’t matter in this equation? You’re a fool.

You’re elementary level arguments coupled with your adolescent, I-15-and-still-angry-at-my-parents style of argumentation makes you a joke. How old are you? You get picked on a lot as a kid or something you pussy?

Keep trying to sound tough on the internet, little man. Lord knows it must be hard to live life as a log cabin republican, but learn to shut up and listen to your betters. I’ve seen people twice as smart as you come and go on this board, you’re not special.
ends rainjack’s voice

Hey rainjack, figuring out yet why no one takes you seriously?
[/quote]

If anyone care’s, I find rainjack’s arguments a lot more convincing then yours.

133

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
<<< If anyone care’s, I find rainjack’s arguments a lot more convincing then yours.[/quote]

You’re are OK buddy LOL!

I’m not laughing at you, seriously. It’s tough being a kid these days trying to sift through all this crap. Life isn’t nearly as simple as it used to be. Your future is at stake. Don’t lose interest.

134

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.[/quote]

Do you see the need for any taxation at all?

135

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.

Do you see the need for any taxation at all?
[/quote]

Of course. For items within the powers of federal government that are either declared or deduced by necessary inference from the Constitution. As far as federal income tax is concerned anyway. I’m no constitutional scholar and some would argue that any federal tax is unconstitutional, but I don’t see how in the modern world we could do with not spending LOTS of money on defense for instance. It has to come from somewhere and the very existence of the country and indeed the free world depends on it. That is promoting the public welfare.

As far as I’m concerned, the entire department of health and human services, the social security administration and the department of education for instance fall entirely outside of that purview and should be left to the states as to whether they would move that way in the public arena which if they had to fund with their own state budgets would go away pretty quick.

Of course we have now created a culture of dependency where simply eliminating these things tomorrow would keep the National Guard busy for months, if not years, as the children of DC had a national temper tantrum. It is a very steep slippery slope and every step of the way there were sensible legislators who warned that we would slide out of control once we started down this path.

Rather than even attempt to reel that disaster back in at all we now just pretend that this is America the compassionate where the federal Robin Hoods will ensure that, in the words of Mahatma Obama, everybody gets a first class education, everybody has world class healthcare, everybody has a house, and every personal financial mistake is corrected. In short where the socialist utopian dream comes true under their wise and loving parenthood.

The tragically ironic thing is that all the many crises that are bemoaned by the liberals every election cycle are the result of THEIR federal oversight and would be in much better shape had they just been left alone in the first place. In most cases.

Their answer always “we just haven’t spent enough yet”. As soon as we just confiscate all wages from anybody who can support themselves and hand out the money as we see fit everything would be peachy keen.

136

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.

Do you see the need for any taxation at all?

Of course. For items within the powers of federal government that are either declared or deduced by necessary inference from the Constitution. As far as federal income tax is concerned anyway. I’m no constitutional scholar and some would argue that any federal tax is unconstitutional, but I don’t see how in the modern world we could do with not spending LOTS of money on defense for instance. It has to come from somewhere and the very existence of the country and indeed the free world depends on it. That is promoting the public welfare.
[/quote]

But surely if you view taxes that are forcibly taken for the purpose of social programs as “legal robbery”, the same is also true for taxation money that is spent on defence.

[quote]
As far as I’m concerned, the entire department of health and human services, the social security administration and the department of education for instance fall entirely outside of that purview and should be left to the states as to whether they would move that way in the public arena which if they had to fund with their own state budgets would go away pretty quick.

Of course we have now created a culture of dependency where simply eliminating these things tomorrow would keep the National Guard busy for months, if not years, as the children of DC had a national temper tantrum. It is a very steep slippery slope and every step of the way there were sensible legislators who warned that we would slide out of control once we started down this path.

Rather than even attempt to reel that disaster back in at all we now just pretend that this is America the compassionate where the federal Robin Hoods will ensure that, in the words of Mahatma Obama, everybody gets a first class education, everybody has world class healthcare, everybody has a house, and every personal financial mistake is corrected. In short where the socialist utopian dream comes true under their wise and loving parenthood.

The tragically ironic thing is that all the many crises that are bemoaned by the liberals every election cycle are the result of THEIR federal oversight and would be in much better shape had they just been left alone in the first place. In most cases.

Their answer always “we just haven’t spent enough yet”. As soon as we just confiscate all wages from anybody who can support themselves and hand out the money as we see fit everything would be peachy keen.[/quote]

For the record, I believe I actually hold fairly similar political views to you. I am just trying to reconcile my views on taxation. I pretty much view it as legalized robbery as well, but my problem is that I believe that some form of taxation is necessary. This is quite a contradiction.

Just for a laugh, here is an interview with Harry Reid that Orion posted in another thread:

137

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
<<< But surely if you view taxes that are forcibly taken for the purpose of social programs as “legal robbery”, the same is also true for taxation money that is spent on defence. >>>[/quote]

No sir, but I’m in the middle of something and can’t tell you why I so believe at the moment. Among the legitimate functions of the federal government are those related to public defense and the prosecution of wars. There is a long history of taxes and some astronomically high for those purposes.

138

I was like wtf… you have millions while relatives live in poverty