McCain/Obama Debate II: 10/07/08

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…But they WOULD vote for somebody suggesting a 3-4 Billion Dollar governmental purchase of bad mortgages?

Help me out here.

Mufasa

No, they wouldn’t. They’ll vote third party or stay home. What they won’t do is consider Obama an alternative.

The idea of health care as a right, though? Meaning, something that government HAS to enforce. After all, the US government’s purpose (supposedly) is to secure our rights, correct? Why not just vote for Hugo Chavez?

What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right. [/quote]

And you’re a lawyer…lol! The powers of the federal government are enumerated. Last time I checked, that did not include providing “healthcare.”

122

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…But they WOULD vote for somebody suggesting a 3-4 Billion Dollar governmental purchase of bad mortgages?

Help me out here.

Mufasa

No, they wouldn’t. They’ll vote third party or stay home. What they won’t do is consider Obama an alternative.

The idea of health care as a right, though? Meaning, something that government HAS to enforce. After all, the US government’s purpose (supposedly) is to secure our rights, correct? Why not just vote for Hugo Chavez?

What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right.

Rights should not include anything that would require someone to be forced to provide. A “right” to healthcare presumes that a healthcare provided can be forced, by the governement, to provide health care[/quote]

Forced to provide? Or forced to provide MORE than you’re getting in return. Or forced to provide to enable others to receive something which they could not afford independently? Many enumerated ‘rights’ and programs and institutions to ensure these rights are funded by taxes that we are forced to pay.

123

I believe I have a right to my life and my property. I can pursue food, shelter, clothing, transportation, retirement funds, and healthcare. But they aren’t rights. They are things I can acquire with my property (my wealth/money). I am not OWED these things via government, which is in turn funded through the looting of my fellow citizen’s property and lives.

124

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I almost forgot!

They BOTH missed a Golden Opportunity to tell many U.S. citizens its time to sacrifice a little (REAL sacrifice) and buck up a little.

It’s the question from the lady on-line whom had lived through WW-II and the sacrifices that Americans had to make then.

Neither Obama nor McCain indicated that any American had to make any sacrifice (except acknowledging those made by the military and their families).

I thought it was a GOLDEN time to let Americans know that we can’t have it all, and have it all, all the time.

They both missed an opportunity.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh now come on here.

The second world war was a no choice situation, not of our making that actually solved a lot of our financial problems at the time. It was very strongly (though not universally) supported and the money was being used for indisputably constitutional purposes.

This crap here is a self inflicted wound in that we put these whores in office. Asking people to sacrifice for the good of all in this situation is a socialist do gooder scam that was entirely avoidable had we denied high elected office to people infecting this nation with the very disease we claimed to be fighting to contain in the rest of the world.

Socialistic [quote]“raise the valleys and lower the mountaintops / each according to his ability to each according to his need”[/quote] fraudulaent compassion, regardless of the damn political party, is what got us here.

If we do not return the power of centralized government to it’s constitutionally instituted limits, and fast, this country is doomed… period.

I continue to stand on the high probability that Mccain will be much better in his court appointments than Obama and will at least hinder the assholes in the house and the senate.

We can get out of anything with relative speed in a couple of election cycles EXCEPT lifelong court appointments which will dog this country for decades even if the house, senate and executive branch were saved.

Tax here, spend there, refund over here, targeted programs over yonder, regulate this, but not that, rescue this, but not that, provide healthcare for all, get your own healthcare provided by a tax on the other side.

It’s ALL F*****G GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING. They need to get the hell out of our lives, our wallets, our cars, our mortgages, our sports, our supplements and give us back our country.

125

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right. [/quote]

I don’t believe there are any rights beyond those enumeraed in the constitution.

I don’t believe the federal government has any responsibilities beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution.

Free health care should be a state issue - as should about 75% of what the Federal government is currently wasting my tax dollars on.

What do you consider a “right”?

126

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No fiscal conservative would even consider voting for a man who believes healthcare is a right.[/quote]

It is true class warfare (with casualties beyond a bank account bottom line) to say that healthcare is not a right. Poor people are kept away from doctors because they can’t afford the incredibly inflated costs of our health care system.

Its funny, insurance companies complain they aren’t making money, hospitals claim they aren’t making money, yet tons of money is being spent so where is it going? The whole system needs a reality check.

Does a hospital need to buy 3 “super triple wave positron body scanners” at unrecoupable costs just so they can get on some “best of…” list when that machine offers no appreciable value over a good ol’ x-ray in 99.5% of cases? Does an insurance company have any right to reject paying for the prescription that my doctor wrote because they don’t “agree” that drug is a viable first line treatment for my condition, forcing me to pay out of pocket if I want the best option?

This system is just as fucked up as all of our other institutions, and the poor are staying sick, and people who actually have health insurance are still forced to declare bankruptcy because they were stupid enough to catch cancer.

Health care operates outside of the influence of the free-market and to me it isn’t worth people dying in the short-term to try dumping healthcare directly into the market ala McCain’s $5000 credit. Obama’s plan of creating new health care options, but allowing one to keep their existing programs if better, is a way to get the system to start a change without throwing things into turmoil that could prove deadly for some.

127

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…But they WOULD vote for somebody suggesting a 3-4 Billion Dollar governmental purchase of bad mortgages?

Help me out here.

Mufasa

No, they wouldn’t. They’ll vote third party or stay home. What they won’t do is consider Obama an alternative.

The idea of health care as a right, though? Meaning, something that government HAS to enforce. After all, the US government’s purpose (supposedly) is to secure our rights, correct? Why not just vote for Hugo Chavez?

What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right.

And you’re a lawyer…lol! The powers of the federal government are enumerated. Last time I checked, that did not include providing “healthcare.” [/quote]

That doesn’t matter. It depends on what your view of the purpose of government is. The Constitution grants the federal government the right to tax and spend to support the general welfare (while it cannot adopt any and all laws in support of the general welfare the way a state can).

Some believe taxing and spending in pursuit of the general welfare should be limited to other specifically enumerated rights in the constitution.

Others believe the taxing and spending power is considerally broader and that it is always legal and permissible (if not always appropriate) to tax and spend on any purpose the government deems necessary to support the general welfare that is not expressly forbidden.

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I believe I have a right to my life and my property. I can pursue food, shelter, clothing, transportation, retirement funds, and healthcare. But they aren’t rights. They are things I can acquire with my property (my wealth/money). I am not OWED these things through via government, which is in turn funded through the looting of my fellow citizen’s property and lives.[/quote]

This should be put in neon on the Washington Monument. In a nutshell this is exactly what this country was meant to be.

129

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I don’t believe there are any rights beyond those enumeraed in the constitution.
[/quote]

well, there may be other rights but they do not fall under the purview of the federal government.

x2

130

[quote]Razorslim wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
<<<<>>>>

I’m hearing this morning that it would be paid for somehow out of the bailout deal.

That’s comforting to know!

NOT![/quote]

I agree and I can’t say if it’s true or not, but that’s what the Mccain chick was saying this morning.

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…But they WOULD vote for somebody suggesting a 3-4 Billion Dollar governmental purchase of bad mortgages?

Help me out here.

Mufasa

No, they wouldn’t. They’ll vote third party or stay home. What they won’t do is consider Obama an alternative.

The idea of health care as a right, though? Meaning, something that government HAS to enforce. After all, the US government’s purpose (supposedly) is to secure our rights, correct? Why not just vote for Hugo Chavez?[/quote]

I’m following you, Sloth.

But don’t you risk the “Perot Factor”? Many feel that Perot’s run, and subsequent “funneling” of Votes from Bush, almost guaranteed a Clinton victory in 1992.

Could the same happen to McCain, thereby putting Obama in the Whitehouse?

The argument seems to be that any ONE 3rd party candidate this year would not receive anywhere near the votes that Perot did.

However; this stands to be a VERY close race.

Mufasa

132

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No fiscal conservative would even consider voting for a man who believes healthcare is a right.

It is true class warfare (with casualties beyond a bank account bottom line) to say that healthcare is not a right. Poor people are kept away from doctors because they can’t afford the incredibly inflated costs of our health care system.

Its funny, insurance companies complain they aren’t making money, hospitals claim they aren’t making money, yet tons of money is being spent so where is it going? The whole system needs a reality check. Does a hospital need to buy 3 “super triple wave positron body scanners” at unrecoupable costs just so they can get on some “best of…” list when that machine offers no appreciable value over a good ol’ x-ray in 99.5% of cases? Does an insurance company have any right to reject paying for the prescription that my doctor wrote because they don’t “agree” that drug is a viable first line treatment for my condition, forcing me to pay out of pocket if I want the best option?

This system is just as fucked up as all of our other institutions, and the poor are staying sick, and people who actually have health insurance are still forced to declare bankruptcy because they were stupid enough to catch cancer. Health care operates outside of the influence of the free-market and to me it isn’t worth people dying in the short-term to try dumping healthcare directly into the market ala McCain’s $5000 credit. Obama’s plan of creating new health care options, but allowing one to keep their existing programs if better, is a way to get the system to start a change without throwing things into turmoil that could prove deadly for some.

[/quote]

Just because you are pissed at a couple of industries does not mean you have a right.

Why must health care be a Federal responsibility?

You are talking about taking money from those who have money, and giving the money, or the services provided with that money to others.

That is socialism.

Just like welfare. Just like Social Security. Just like the bail out.

How anyone in their right minds can be against the bail out, but be in favor of gov’t sponsored health care is beyond me.

133

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
…But they WOULD vote for somebody suggesting a 3-4 Billion Dollar governmental purchase of bad mortgages?

Help me out here.

Mufasa

No, they wouldn’t. They’ll vote third party or stay home. What they won’t do is consider Obama an alternative.

The idea of health care as a right, though? Meaning, something that government HAS to enforce. After all, the US government’s purpose (supposedly) is to secure our rights, correct? Why not just vote for Hugo Chavez?

What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right.

And you’re a lawyer…lol! The powers of the federal government are enumerated. Last time I checked, that did not include providing “healthcare.”

That doesn’t matter. [/quote]

By “that” you mean the constitution?

That’s bullshit and you know it - it depends upon what the Constitution says; not what “my” or anyone else’s view is.

Please show me what you’re referring to. Thanks.

[quote]
Some believe taxing and spending in pursuit of the general welfare should be limited to other specifically enumerated rights in the constitution.

Others believe the taxing and spending power is considerally broader and that it is always legal and permissible (if not always appropriate) to tax and spend on any purpose the government deems necessary to support the general welfare that is not expressly forbidden.[/quote]

yeah, and they’re wrong and they’re destroying the our country and our constitution in pursuit of their ideological goals.

[minor edits]

134

jsbrook,

I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer?

135

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No fiscal conservative would even consider voting for a man who believes healthcare is a right.

It is true class warfare (with casualties beyond a bank account bottom line) to say that healthcare is not a right. Poor people are kept away from doctors because they can’t afford the incredibly inflated costs of our health care system.

Its funny, insurance companies complain they aren’t making money, hospitals claim they aren’t making money, yet tons of money is being spent so where is it going? The whole system needs a reality check.

Does a hospital need to buy 3 “super triple wave positron body scanners” at unrecoupable costs just so they can get on some “best of…” list when that machine offers no appreciable value over a good ol’ x-ray in 99.5% of cases? Does an insurance company have any right to reject paying for the prescription that my doctor wrote because they don’t “agree” that drug is a viable first line treatment for my condition, forcing me to pay out of pocket if I want the best option?

This system is just as fucked up as all of our other institutions, and the poor are staying sick, and people who actually have health insurance are still forced to declare bankruptcy because they were stupid enough to catch cancer.

Health care operates outside of the influence of the free-market and to me it isn’t worth people dying in the short-term to try dumping healthcare directly into the market ala McCain’s $5000 credit. Obama’s plan of creating new health care options, but allowing one to keep their existing programs if better, is a way to get the system to start a change without throwing things into turmoil that could prove deadly for some.
[/quote]

Ok, you pay for my healthcare. And my food, and my shelter, and my transportation (hey I need transportation to get to the food and hospital). My right to these supercede your right to your property and life (you have to spend up part of your life-span to earn/maintain your property, after all).

Your idea of what rights are requires trampling on the rights of others.

136

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What is your list of rights? And your list of privileges? Do you believe there are any rights other than those enumerated in the constitution? Apparently, you believe the government should never be involved in anything beyond securing what you deem a right.

I don’t believe there are any rights beyond those enumeraed in the constitution.

I don’t believe the federal government has any responsibilities beyond those that are enumerated in the constitution.

Free health care should be a state issue - as should about 75% of what the Federal government is currently wasting my tax dollars on.

What do you consider a “right”?[/quote]

I believe the rights/privileges distinction is a poor one. I don’t believe the federal government is or should be limited to everything expressly delineated in the Constitution. And indeed, the ‘necessary and proper’ clause was essential if it is sometimes abused. In order to assure and pursue expressly delinated rights.

I DO believe the government needs to be careful and judicious in what it taxes for and spends on. And that it usually not. And I do believe there have been power grabs in inappropriate ways. The most blatant is the interstate commerce clause. The federal government has justified laws as necessary to protect interstate commerce that cannot possibly have any real impact under any logical interpretation.

Beyond that, I believe it is now an academic question and foolish to yearn for a federal government that only spends in pursuit of specifically enumerated constitutional rights. This would require dismantling hundreds of years of judicial and legislative precedent. And thousands of federal initiatives, programs, and laws. At this point, it would do far more harm than good if it’s even possible.

Whether or not we went the wrong route 200 years ago, I think the cat’s out of the bag now. The focus should now be on restraint, reigning in excess, balancing budgets, careful thought regarding programs to be funded. While I view the Constitution as permissive and not limiting as applies to the Tax and Spend power, I don’t think the federal government should be spending on things it can’t afford or that state governments can do better.

Education is one of these things in my mind. As it stands, the federal government’s contribution to total educational funding is very small. Under your view, if the federal government should only deal in specifically enumerated rights, why are federal vouhcers appropriate? Why shouldn’t it, instead, neither tax for nor fund education? Which is what I believe. I don’t believe that there is any constiuttional prohibition against federal involvemnt in education. But I also don’t believe that it can do a good job and that this is an area best left to States.

137

[quote]borrek wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
LOL@hate our way of life.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do you think the jihadists are just making up reasons when they tell the US to get the fuck out of the middle east or that our ties with Israel is what drives them to hate us? What reason would they have to give a false reason for hating the US? I mean really

lol false reason? you know that a large portion of middle easterners don’t believe the 9/11 hijackers were saudi and were instead american and israeli? reason has nothing to do with it.

America is their “great satan”, Israel isn’t even recognized by most governments there.

[/quote]

and why does the US or the american people have to worry about affairs in the middle east.

being in the middle of everyone BS and worrying about what people think of us is what got us in this mess.
I say worry about your damn self and fuck everyone else.

we are out there helping everyone else and I really dont see where anyone is helping us.
Being allys,no one cares about us.

like hulk said fuck them.

138

[quote]borrek wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No fiscal conservative would even consider voting for a man who believes healthcare is a right.

It is true class warfare (with casualties beyond a bank account bottom line) to say that healthcare is not a right. Poor people are kept away from doctors because they can’t afford the incredibly inflated costs of our health care system.

Its funny, insurance companies complain they aren’t making money, hospitals claim they aren’t making money, yet tons of money is being spent so where is it going? The whole system needs a reality check. Does a hospital need to buy 3 “super triple wave positron body scanners” at unrecoupable costs just so they can get on some “best of…” list when that machine offers no appreciable value over a good ol’ x-ray in 99.5% of cases? Does an insurance company have any right to reject paying for the prescription that my doctor wrote because they don’t “agree” that drug is a viable first line treatment for my condition, forcing me to pay out of pocket if I want the best option?

This system is just as fucked up as all of our other institutions, and the poor are staying sick, and people who actually have health insurance are still forced to declare bankruptcy because they were stupid enough to catch cancer. Health care operates outside of the influence of the free-market and to me it isn’t worth people dying in the short-term to try dumping healthcare directly into the market ala McCain’s $5000 credit. Obama’s plan of creating new health care options, but allowing one to keep their existing programs if better, is a way to get the system to start a change without throwing things into turmoil that could prove deadly for some.
[/quote]

INSURANCE. The existence of, which is another form of pooled resources being distributed to the many and which existence is for the enrichment of those perpetrating the scam, is the primary problem with our healthcare (deathcare) industry.

Nobody ever thinks about why it costs so damn much, only about insuring everybody. If every person had to pay for their own healthcare there is no way it could cost this much, it would be bankrupt in a year. Almost nobody could pay it.

Doctors go hog wild because they know the insurance company will pay it. The insurance company plays every semantic game of high brow legalese to avoid paying and the patient is a $ to both.

Gold digging low lifes trying to hit a self made lottery coupled with lower quality personnel giving them ammunition is another huge problem with, yep, the insurance companies in the middle of that as well.

This is just another huge area where we have spun totally out of control, but the root is a system where somebody other than the recipient of the benefit pays for that benefit. With social programs taxes are paid and benefits given to a group. With our insurance based healthcare debacle, premiums are paid and the benefits are given to a group. Both driven by socialist principles and both disastrous.

We have the best medical technology on Earth and then corrupt it with these insidious community based methods of distribution. The only thing worse would be the next step of giving it to a government that is destroying nearly everything it touches already.

We are so far down this road only a small portion of my being still has faith that we will throw off those chains before collapsing under the weight of our own bureaucratic bullshit.

139

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
jsbrook,

I realize that the Constitution is an inconvenience to those who would like to engage in “social engineering” towards (allegedly) “socially desirable” outcomes, but one thing that people like you never seem to understand is this: we either have the rule of law via written documents (such as the constitution) or rule by decree. Which do YOU prefer? [/quote]

Gimme a break.

Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

140

Right.

Let’s the federal government run healthcare - that way we can kill two birds with one stone:

We can 1. tear up the Constitution (which is what we secretly want to do in our pursuit of a great and powerful leader to give meaning to our pathetic lives);

And 2. fuck up healthcare for everyone - because, as we can see, the Fed government is doing a really wonderful job running everything else.