PDA

View Full Version : Why are people wanting to repeal or defund a project that hasn't even begun?



Wei Wu Wei
04-08-2010, 09:23 PM
I'm talking about the Health Bill. If this bill is as atrocious as people say it is, why are people worried about it getting repealed?

If the vast majority of people (and not on a Fox Opinion Poll) actually dislike the program once it's implemented, wouldn't an even larger Tea Party style grassroots movement take place?

The bill has passed, shouldn't we see the effects of it first?

People seem to believe in the power of democracy enough that (some at least) will vote to overturn, undo, or at least defund this program, so if you believe that this is what our democratic system can do, what is stopping them from doing it in a few years?

I hear that the taxes will begin collecting before the other parts of the bill kick in, that's great. If the bigger parts of the health bill begin to take effect in 2014 (another congressional election year) and the public doesn't like it, that would be the perfect time for them to push the issue because it is a voting year.

Are people afraid that if this program begins, as well as any other additional bills to come, that the people will like it?

If this bill is an awful bill and most Americans dislike it, they can pressure their congressmen to repeal, undo, or defund it then. All that collected tax money can then be put towards the debt, something everyone agrees needs to be addressed, and it would sooth all the concerns about this bill being too expensive.

The truth of the matter is many of the proposals in this bill are untested, no one can be sure how it's going to turn out, and it's possible that additional bills will be passed to supplement it.


My main question is: If you believe in grassroots democracy enough that voting can stop this bill now, what stops the will of the people from stopping it a few years from now once they've tried it (assuming they discover it to be terrible)?


I believe we are at a crucial turning point in history, economic globalization, the information revolution, we are in a period of change as significant as the industrial revolution. We cannot stop this change, it's a global change and we are inseparable from it. Our only choice if we want to be a dominant nation in this new world is to adapt. We have to tackle very tough issues, health care, energy, international policy in this age of terrorism, and an economy that's springing into brand new dimensions thanks to technology. These aren't easy but the answer is NOT to fall into denial about the change while we stagnate and other nations soar past us in terms of growth.

This health bill is passed, it is the first major legislation of it's kind in a very long time and it's a bold step for America. We can't avoid all action and worry about what may happen. We can try to go back in time, or we can see what happens, and deal with it with full attention as it comes.




In other words: Deal with it :cool:

Rockntractor
04-08-2010, 09:25 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Spongebob-Popcorn.gif?t=1270776274

Constitutionally Speaking
04-08-2010, 09:27 PM
We can't let it take effect because it will trap millions of people into becoming dependent on it.

It will be like social security, vastly inferior to the alternatives, yet untouchable because of the scare tactics that the left keeps using.

marv
04-08-2010, 09:33 PM
Why are people wanting to repeal or defund a project that hasn't even begun?
Confusion reigns. Wee Wee is now anti-abortion.


That might have been over Wee Wee's head.

malloc
04-08-2010, 09:47 PM
I'm talking about the Health Bill. If this bill is as atrocious as people say it is, why are people worried about it getting repealed?

If the vast majority of people (and not on a Fox Opinion Poll) actually dislike the program once it's implemented, wouldn't an even larger Tea Party style grassroots movement take place?

The bill has passed, shouldn't we see the effects of it first?

People seem to believe in the power of democracy enough that (some at least) will vote to overturn, undo, or at least defund this program, so if you believe that this is what our democratic system can do, what is stopping them from doing it in a few years?


We could monetize all of our debt, print excess, spread that money into the banks and let every American draw $10,000 of freshly printed green to cover their health care costs for this year, and then do it again next year. I mean, we haven't tested that! It could work, and people might like it! Better yet, we could impose high tariffs on all imported goods, buy up our own debt, strengthen the currency and develop protectionist trade policies! That could bring us out of recession! We haven't tested it! We don't know that it won't work. I know, we can all jump off the empire state building! We haven't tested it! Maybe we won't all die and that will magically make us all healthy! It could happen you know!

Do you see what I'm driving at? Of course we haven't tested these things because the laws of economics are similar to the laws of gravity. Health care is a scarce resource, and government decree and wishful thinking will not change the facts that America is not in an economically sound enough position to overcome this scarcity through taxing and spending. If taxes go up, production goes down, jobs go down, then tax revenues go down so that the rates must be hiked again leading to a downward spiral. What can't be taxed out of us must be taxed out of our future generations through borrowing, and in case you haven't noticed our creditors have just about had their fill of our debt.

Americans as a whole may not all be economic experts, but they know what they can afford and what they cant, so by proxy they have a good idea about what this nation can afford and what it can't. They know we can't afford this, and that's probably where 50% of the anger over this takeover comes from.

The other part of the anger stems from some thoughts that most Americans probably can't articulate very well. They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to tell them what to buy with the fruits of their own labor. They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to inject itself between them and their doctor. They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to dig into their financially responsible pockets to feed the needy mouths of those were aren't financially responsible. Americans are finally waking up and realizing that we aren't a free people, and that in fact, the minority of Americans are slaves to the whims of the majority. That is precisely why our form of government is not, and was never meant to be, a Democracy. We have a fixed body of law, our Constitution, designed to prevent the majority from becoming oppressors of the minorities. Neither the Congress nor the Executive care about the spirit or purpose of our Constitution, and this health care nonsense just brought it to a head.


In other words: Deal with it :cool:

Oh, we are dealing with it in true Representative Republic style. It will be a sad day for those who backed this plan in November.

Gingersnap
04-08-2010, 10:22 PM
My main question is: If you believe in grassroots democracy enough that voting can stop this bill now, what stops the will of the people from stopping it a few years from now once they've tried it (assuming they discover it to be terrible)?

We don't but we do have to try. No mass entitlement program in this country has ever been repealed. As others have pointed out, dependency on government is bad. It's a short route to political slavery. The mass entitlement programs that we already have are riddled with waste and fraud and already damage people. Even so, it's a near impossible job to convince a voter to relinquish anything described as "free" (a lot of people seem to already be confused by this point).

The other problem with government solutions like this is that they seldom meet outcome goals. We've thrown enormous amounts of money and social engineering into public education but we rank far down the list on meeting educational goals. All that money and effort brought no returns. Our food subsidy programs are now taken advantage of by unemployed hipsters but only WIC has shown any measurable return in terms of health outcomes. Medicaid patients do not have better outcomes than the uninsured. Free and low cost vaccinations for childhood diseases does seem to work but that's literally a one shot deal.

Since we don't have an enviable track record of creating positive outcomes with governmental intervention in personal lives (and health care, like education, is very personal), why should we believe that politicians who haven't even read the bill have suddenly stumbled on a successful strategy?

FeebMaster
04-08-2010, 10:57 PM
Because once it has begun, it will never die. It will be amended, fixed, tweaked, adjusted, and reformed again, but it will never be repealed.

Strictly speaking, it's already too late.

NJCardFan
04-08-2010, 11:16 PM
http://stardustandsequins.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/cheesecake-wedding-cake05.jpg

PoliCon
04-08-2010, 11:26 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/dumbass_poster.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 12:13 AM
We can't let it take effect because it will trap millions of people into becoming dependent on it.

What exactly will people become dependent on? There's no public option, there's no national plan, it's just a series of regulations and tax adjustments.

Or do you mean the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance? I wouldn't exactly call that a "trap".


It will be like social security, vastly inferior to the alternatives, yet untouchable because of the scare tactics that the left keeps using.

Except that it's not a public option or national plan, the only part that's even similar to an entitlement program is the subsidies for low income families. This is not a single payer system, which is the only thing you could compare to social security.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 12:15 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/april-fool.jpg?t=1270785743

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 12:29 AM
We could monetize all of our debt, print excess, spread that money into the banks and let every American draw $10,000 of freshly printed green to cover their health care costs for this year, and then do it again next year. I mean, we haven't tested that! It could work, and people might like it!

Actually several other countries have tried exactly that and we know what happens. This bill isn't anything like other countries, European or Canadian or literally every advanced nation. Our new plan is a fresh idea and the CBO has said it'll bring down the deficit.


Better yet, we could impose high tariffs on all imported goods, buy up our own debt, strengthen the currency and develop protectionist trade policies! That could bring us out of recession! We haven't tested it! We don't know that it won't work. I know, we can all jump off the empire state building! We haven't tested it! Maybe we won't all die and that will magically make us all healthy! It could happen you know!

Do you see what I'm driving at? Of course we haven't tested these things because the laws of economics are similar to the laws of gravity.

These things are obvious failed plans that other countries have enacted. No other country has passed a bill like ours.

Also just so you know, the "invisible hand of the market" is a delusion.


Health care is a scarce resource,

No it's not. It's simply a commodity in very high demand, so prices are high and it makes health care an expensive resource, but it's not "scarce". We are the wealthiest nation in the world, with some of the lowest taxes of all advanced nations, there's nothing "scarce" about our resources except that it's scarce for the bottom 80% of the population.



and government decree and wishful thinking will not change the facts that America is not in an economically sound enough position to overcome this scarcity through taxing and spending. If taxes go up, production goes down, jobs go down, then tax revenues go down so that the rates must be hiked again leading to a downward spiral. What can't be taxed out of us must be taxed out of our future generations through borrowing, and in case you haven't noticed our creditors have just about had their fill of our debt.

Actually no this is a ridiculously simplistic vision. In the 1950's and 60's tax rates for the wealthy were around 90%, about 10% for workers, and that period had the largest expansion of the middle class and the longest consistent drop in poverty in our nation's history. Our companies did great, unions were strong, and it only required a single working class income to sustain a middle class family with little debt.




Americans as a whole may not all be economic experts, but they know what they can afford and what they cant, so by proxy they have a good idea about what this nation can afford and what it can't.

No. Oh for the love of God NO. This is exactly what's wrong with our political system, people are not only uneducated but they are encouraged to be so. They view themselves as knowledgable as the President "hurr anyone could do that job better". We are going to fall behind the rest of the world if we don't stop and realize that this isn't a game, macroeconomics isn't somethin that can be summed up in folksy middle class wisdom.



They know we can't afford this, and that's probably where 50% of the anger over this takeover comes from.

Without this bill the costs spent on healthcare would be far higher.


The other part of the anger stems from some thoughts that most Americans probably can't articulate very well. They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to tell them what to buy with the fruits of their own labor.

The problem is that so many Americans think they can have all the roses without the thorns. They want a plan that doesn't add to the deficit but they don't want taxes to go up. They want a plan that lowers costs but don't want a buy-in requirement. They want what conservative talk radio promises them over and over just to get them to the polls: comforting home-style solutions with no downsides. It's a fantasy and it's pathetic that so much of our electorate expects these things.


They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to inject itself between them and their doctor.

There already is someone between you and your doctor: your insurance company. They decide what they will cover and not cover, they influence doctors and hospitals in terms of practices, and they are just as bureaucratic. This bill aims to regulate that middle man who is already there.


They are angry that the Federal Government presumes the right to dig into their financially responsible pockets to feed the needy mouths of those were aren't financially responsible. Americans are finally waking up and realizing that we aren't a free people, and that in fact, the minority of Americans are slaves to the whims of the majority. That is precisely why our form of government is not, and was never meant to be, a Democracy. We have a fixed body of law, our Constitution, designed to prevent the majority from becoming oppressors of the minorities. Neither the Congress nor the Executive care about the spirit or purpose of our Constitution, and this health care nonsense just brought it to a head.



Oh, we are dealing with it in true Representative Republic style. It will be a sad day for those who backed this plan in November.


Like I said, if this bill is as horrible as everyone makes it seems, wait a few years and see what it does, let the people decide AFTER they see the results. This is the most common sense position to take.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 12:43 AM
We don't but we do have to try. No mass entitlement program in this country has ever been repealed. As others have pointed out, dependency on government is bad. It's a short route to political slavery. The mass entitlement programs that we already have are riddled with waste and fraud and already damage people. Even so, it's a near impossible job to convince a voter to relinquish anything described as "free" (a lot of people seem to already be confused by this point).

Do you think we should not have unemployment benefits? Do you think the country would be better off during this recession had people not had unemployment checks to collect while they looked for work? Do you think the economy would have been affected in any way had these people not had these checks?



The other problem with government solutions like this is that they seldom meet outcome goals. We've thrown enormous amounts of money and social engineering into public education but we rank far down the list on meeting educational goals.

We rank far down the list? Please tell me which countries rank higher than us, and what sort of "social programs" do they have?



All that money and effort brought no returns. Our food subsidy programs are now taken advantage of by unemployed hipsters but only WIC has shown any measurable return in terms of health outcomes. Medicaid patients do not have better outcomes than the uninsured. Free and low cost vaccinations for childhood diseases does seem to work but that's literally a one shot deal.

Since we don't have an enviable track record of creating positive outcomes with governmental intervention in personal lives (and health care, like education, is very personal), why should we believe that politicians who haven't even read the bill have suddenly stumbled on a successful strategy?

Medicare is very appreciated by it's recipients, federal student loan programs have allowed many people to go to college who otherwise couldn't, we have the best military in the world.

These problems can be addressed, you can't put a blanket over government and say ALL GOOD or ALL BAD. If we take a serious approach towards this we might be able to get something done but unfortunately people are too caught up with crap like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhJ7NmU6lJI

to even have a serious discussion.

No plan is perfect but doing nothing WILL NOT WORK.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 01:10 AM
HEY WEE WEE!
http://ryanericsongcanlas.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/idiots.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2010, 06:37 AM
What exactly will people become dependent on? There's no public option, there's no national plan, it's just a series of regulations and tax adjustments.

Or do you mean the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance? I wouldn't exactly call that a "trap".



Except that it's not a public option or national plan, the only part that's even similar to an entitlement program is the subsidies for low income families. This is not a single payer system, which is the only thing you could compare to social security.


The way the law is designed there WILL be not just a public option, but ONE option - the government one.

malloc
04-09-2010, 07:30 AM
x

Jfor
04-09-2010, 11:13 AM
What exactly will people become dependent on? There's no public option, there's no national plan, it's just a series of regulations and tax adjustments.

Or do you mean the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance? I wouldn't exactly call that a "trap".



Except that it's not a public option or national plan, the only part that's even similar to an entitlement program is the subsidies for low income families. This is not a single payer system, which is the only thing you could compare to social security.

You seriously have no clue. This is a first step. They saw the reaction to a public option so they watered the bill down. They know that health insurance companies will go broke by being forced to cover pre-existing conditions. Then the government will HAVE to swoop in and save the day. You libs really are stupid. America does not want more government.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 11:22 AM
You seriously have no clue. This is a first step. They saw the reaction to a public option so they watered the bill down. They know that health insurance companies will go broke by being forced to cover pre-existing conditions. Then the government will HAVE to swoop in and save the day. You libs really are stupid. America does not want more government.

um

Health care stocks gain after House passes reform bill
By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterMarch 22, 2010: 4:39 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Health care stocks ended sharply higher Monday as the long-debated health care reform legislation headed to President Obama's desk.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 11:42 AM
um

Health care stocks gain after House passes reform bill
By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterMarch 22, 2010: 4:39 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Health care stocks ended sharply higher Monday as the long-debated health care reform legislation headed to President Obama's desk.

As of right now they have. There is a thing called making a quick buck. TARP was supposed to have stopped unemployment at 8%. Where is it now? Your argument is invalid. You are invalid. The simple fact of the matter is, is that if a companies expenses go up, then they have to charge more. Under Obamacare, they won't be able to. So what does that company do? It closes it's doors if it is no longer profitable. You are really are dumbass.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 12:06 PM
As of right now they have. There is a thing called making a quick buck. TARP was supposed to have stopped unemployment at 8%. Where is it now? Your argument is invalid. You are invalid. The simple fact of the matter is, is that if a companies expenses go up, then they have to charge more. Under Obamacare, they won't be able to. So what does that company do? It closes it's doors if it is no longer profitable. You are really are dumbass.

Um how about the fact that there's a "mandate" that's going to give these companies millions of new customers?

So what if they loose a little money in some policies, with this many new costumers they're going to do great.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Um how about the fact that there's a "mandate" that's going to give these companies millions of new customers?

So what if they loose a little money in some policies, with this many new costumers they're going to do great.

Bullshit... that is what you libs want to believe. It won't be a little money that they are losing. It will be a ton of money. There is already an article where the state of Massachusetts told insurance companies they cannot raise their rates and have to leave them at 2009 levels. That is going to cost those insurance companies 100's of millions of dollars. When you have to take on people that have pre-existing conditions and cover them, that is going to be an additional cost. Then MY rates go up because the government is forcing me to pay for their insurance anyways. On top of that, doctors are going to start retiring or getting of medicine altogether. It may all sound great on paper, but their is not one thing government can do that private business cannot do better.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 12:22 PM
Um how about the fact that there's a "mandate" that's going to give these companies millions of new customers?

So what if they loose a little money in some policies, with this many new costumers they're going to do great.

millions of new policies - and NO PROFIT.:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
04-09-2010, 12:45 PM
Um how about the fact that there's a "mandate" that's going to give these companies millions of new customers?

So what if they loose a little money in some policies, with this many new costumers they're going to do great.

Just when I didn't think you can be a bigger idiot, you go and say something like this to prove me wrong. "So what if that 'loose' a little money"? Are you fucking serious with this question? Perhaps I can break it down so even you can understand:

Billy, Jimmy, and Johnny didn't have insurance. Billy and Jimmy didn't have any because they are young and felt they didn't need any. Johnny has a pre-existing condition(say diabetes). They all now have to get insurance. They all sign up for a policy that charges them $100 a month($1200 a year). Billy and Jimmy only use it for the occasional doctor visit or if they get a cold or the flu. Johnny has to go every month or so because of his condition. While Billy and Jimmy only use about $300 of the $1200 each they put in, Johnny's doctor bills exceed $5,000(which include his prescription medications and other treatments). Between the 3, that is a net loss of $1,700 for the insurance company(this, of course, assuming that insurance companies won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions...which you know would result in a million lawsuits). No company can survive on that.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 01:04 PM
Just when I didn't think you can be a bigger idiot, you go and say something like this to prove me wrong. "So what if that 'loose' a little money"? Are you fucking serious with this question? Perhaps I can break it down so even you can understand:

Billy, Jimmy, and Johnny didn't have insurance. Billy and Jimmy didn't have any because they are young and felt they didn't need any. Johnny has a pre-existing condition(say diabetes). They all now have to get insurance. They all sign up for a policy that charges them $100 a month($1200 a year). Billy and Jimmy only use it for the occasional doctor visit or if they get a cold or the flu. Johnny has to go every month or so because of his condition. While Billy and Jimmy only use about $300 of the $1200 each they put in, Johnny's doctor bills exceed $5,000(which include his prescription medications and other treatments). Between the 3, that is a net loss of $1,700 for the insurance company(this, of course, assuming that insurance companies won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions...which you know would result in a million lawsuits). No company can survive on that.

Well firstly your example makes a HUGE assumption that 33% of all costumers have pre-existing conditions. I haven't checked the numbers but if a third of the population attempting to buy insurance cannot get insured then we have a problem on our hands.

Second, you are right, your number assumes insurance companies can't charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. That is NOT in the bill, the bill doesn't specify that, it only requires that they are able to get coverage, but it doesn't negotiate the price. Some already do, and there's no reason to expect that they will not charge higher for people with pre-existing conditions. you can speculate about what people may try to do legally in the future, but this isn't how the bill is written.

Third, your example assumes that all "pre-existing conditions" are as costly to treat as Diabetes. It's well documented that things like Acne, Asthma, a high school football injury, or other issues that require little to no actual cost have caused people to lose their coverage even after paying premiums.

Now, add in tens of millions of new customers 'legally obligated' to purchase insurance. I think those companies are going to be alright.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 01:51 PM
Well firstly your example makes a HUGE assumption that 33% of all costumers have pre-existing conditions. I haven't checked the numbers but if a third of the population attempting to buy insurance cannot get insured then we have a problem on our hands.

Second, you are right, your number assumes insurance companies can't charge higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. That is NOT in the bill, the bill doesn't specify that, it only requires that they are able to get coverage, but it doesn't negotiate the price. Some already do, and there's no reason to expect that they will not charge higher for people with pre-existing conditions. you can speculate about what people may try to do legally in the future, but this isn't how the bill is written.

Third, your example assumes that all "pre-existing conditions" are as costly to treat as Diabetes. It's well documented that things like Acne, Asthma, a high school football injury, or other issues that require little to no actual cost have caused people to lose their coverage even after paying premiums.

Now, add in tens of millions of new customers 'legally obligated' to purchase insurance. I think those companies are going to be alright.

LIES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGjxxytLy8

JR2980
04-09-2010, 02:27 PM
People seem to believe in the power of democracy enough that (some at least) will vote to overturn, undo, or at least defund this program, so if you believe that this is what our democratic system can do, what is stopping them from doing it in a few years?


If this bill is an awful bill and most Americans dislike it, they can pressure their congressmen to repeal, undo, or defund it then.


My main question is: If you believe in grassroots democracy enough that voting can stop this bill now, what stops the will of the people from stopping it a few years from now once they've tried it (assuming they discover it to be terrible)?




I've been a long time reader, but your post actually motivated me to register so that I can post - Thanks for that!!! ;)



The majority of Americans were against this bill, and our "Representatives" (I use the term VERY loosely) decided to ignore the people and what they wanted, and vote for it anyways.

Your argument seems to be that if the people are against it, then it will magically vote itself out in a few years.

Newsflash - the people are against it now!!!

Congress ignored their constituents now when enacting the law, what makes you think they'll have a sudden change of heart in a few years and repeal it for us just because we asked nicely??? :confused:

If they ignored the will of the people now, with no repercussions, why wouldn't they do the same thing in the future?




How about this - the next time you go to the mechanic to get your oil changed, tell him that you don't want 4 new tires that he's peddling, since you like the ones you have, you think they are just fine, and you prefer to get your tires elsewhere.

If he puts 4 new tires on your car anyways, and bills you for them, will your response be..... "Well, I'll pay for them now, and see how they work out. In a few months I can come back and make him take them back if I don't like them - he'll for sure listen to me then!!!" :eek:

Get real!



And no - I DO NOT have to "Deal With It"! :mad:

Jfor
04-09-2010, 02:55 PM
Well said JR!!

Zathras
04-09-2010, 03:15 PM
Well said JR!!

And welcome to CU.

Megaguns91
04-09-2010, 03:21 PM
Welcome to CU and great retort, JR.

Apache
04-09-2010, 05:21 PM
I've been a long time reader, but your post actually motivated me to register so that I can post - Thanks for that!!!



The majority of Americans were against this bill, and our "Representatives" (I use the term VERY loosely) decided to ignore the people and what they wanted, and vote for it anyways.

Your argument seems to be that if the people are against it, then it will magically vote itself out in a few years.

Newsflash - the people are against it now!!!

Congress ignored their constituents now when enacting the law, what makes you think they'll have a sudden change of heart in a few years and repeal it for us just because we asked nicely??? :confused:

If they ignored the will of the people now, with no repercussions, why wouldn't they do the same thing in the future?




How about this - the next time you go to the mechanic to get your oil changed, tell him that you don't want 4 new tires that he's peddling, since you like the ones you have, you think they are just fine, and you prefer to get your tires elsewhere.

If he puts 4 new tires on your car anyways, and bills you for them, will your response be..... "Well, I'll pay for them now, and see how they work out. In a few months I can come back and make him take them back if I don't like them - he'll for sure listen to me then!!!" Get real!



And no - I DO NOT have to "Deal With It"! :mad:

Holy CRAP! That one landed in the next zip code :eek:


Good one newbie, and welcome :cool:

Apache
04-09-2010, 05:27 PM
I'm talking about the Health Bill. If this bill is as atrocious as people say it is, why are people worried about it getting repealed?

If the vast majority of people (and not on a Fox Opinion Poll) actually dislike the program once it's implemented, wouldn't an even larger Tea Party style grassroots movement take place?

The bill has passed, shouldn't we see the effects of it first?

People seem to believe in the power of democracy enough that (some at least) will vote to overturn, undo, or at least defund this program, so if you believe that this is what our democratic system can do, what is stopping them from doing it in a few years?

I hear that the taxes will begin collecting before the other parts of the bill kick in, that's great. If the bigger parts of the health bill begin to take effect in 2014 (another congressional election year) and the public doesn't like it, that would be the perfect time for them to push the issue because it is a voting year.

Are people afraid that if this program begins, as well as any other additional bills to come, that the people will like it?

If this bill is an awful bill and most Americans dislike it, they can pressure their congressmen to repeal, undo, or defund it then. All that collected tax money can then be put towards the debt, something everyone agrees needs to be addressed, and it would sooth all the concerns about this bill being too expensive.

The truth of the matter is many of the proposals in this bill are untested, no one can be sure how it's going to turn out, and it's possible that additional bills will be passed to supplement it.


My main question is: If you believe in grassroots democracy enough that voting can stop this bill now, what stops the will of the people from stopping it a few years from now once they've tried it (assuming they discover it to be terrible)?


I believe we are at a crucial turning point in history, economic globalization, the information revolution, we are in a period of change as significant as the industrial revolution. We cannot stop this change, it's a global change and we are inseparable from it. Our only choice if we want to be a dominant nation in this new world is to adapt. We have to tackle very tough issues, health care, energy, international policy in this age of terrorism, and an economy that's springing into brand new dimensions thanks to technology. These aren't easy but the answer is NOT to fall into denial about the change while we stagnate and other nations soar past us in terms of growth.

This health bill is passed, it is the first major legislation of it's kind in a very long time and it's a bold step for America. We can't avoid all action and worry about what may happen. We can try to go back in time, or we can see what happens, and deal with it with full attention as it comes.




In other words: Deal with it :cool:Where do I even start? Why should I even try? You really don't have the foggiest notion about what's going to happen, even though we've had examples from across the globe.


Guess what WeeWee, THEY ALL FAIL TO DELIVER AS PROMISED...

FlaGator
04-09-2010, 05:32 PM
The problem is that the "project" never should have been enacted in the first place. I don't personally know anyone who wanted it and I know that I don't expect good things to come of this other than the possibility that it creates another layer of the dependent class.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 05:39 PM
I've been a long time reader, but your post actually motivated me to register so that I can post - Thanks for that!!! ;)



The majority of Americans were against this bill, and our "Representatives" (I use the term VERY loosely) decided to ignore the people and what they wanted, and vote for it anyways.

The Majority of Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000, we should know by now it's not as simple as that.



Your argument seems to be that if the people are against it, then it will magically vote itself out in a few years.

Newsflash - the people are against it now!!!

No, my argument is that if democracy can work like the Tea PArty believes it can work, then the rational move is to see how this bill works, and if it fails then we can stop it and redirect the funding towards the debt.

Why should we be against something before most people even know what it is. Even now, after the bill has passed, some people believe there's a public option, some people believe we are now having single-payer, some people believe all sorts of nonsense.

Isn't the smartest decision is to see how it works, and judge it AFTER we know the facts, and if it's a failure we can shut it down.




Congress ignored their constituents now when enacting the law, what makes you think they'll have a sudden change of heart in a few years and repeal it for us just because we asked nicely??? :confused:

Because many parts of this bill go into effect during a congressional election year. If this bill is really as bad as all of the pundits make it seem, then we will see it then and there will be a huge backlash in voting.




If they ignored the will of the people now, with no repercussions, why wouldn't they do the same thing in the future?

No repercussions? The right is trying to remove democrats because of this bill, and no one has even seen the effects of it yet. The bill comes into effect largely in 2014, an election year, if it is really that bad, that's the perfect time (AFTER WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT) to hold congress's feet to the fire.

The whole point is why are we judging something before we've ever seen the effects of it. That's ignorant!





How about this - the next time you go to the mechanic to get your oil changed, tell him that you don't want 4 new tires that he's peddling, since you like the ones you have, you think they are just fine, and you prefer to get your tires elsewhere.

If he puts 4 new tires on your car anyways, and bills you for them, will your response be..... "Well, I'll pay for them now, and see how they work out. In a few months I can come back and make him take them back if I don't like them - he'll for sure listen to me then!!!" :eek:

Except congress doesn't function like a private business. I'm not allowed to fire the mechanic in your example. Also, in the example the tires ARE bad, everyone knows the tires are bad, but i just don't know if I want the tires he gave me. I'm going to need new tires regardless, so if he gives me tires then I might as well test them out and if I don't like them I can fire the mechanic and take that money and put it towards my student loans. That sounds like a good deal.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 05:42 PM
The problem is that the "project" never should have been enacted in the first place. I don't personally know anyone who wanted it and I know that I don't expect good things to come of this other than the possibility that it creates another layer of the dependent class.

I know plenty of people who supported the bill. Personally, I didn't like the bill but it is better than nothing and if later reforms are passed to supplement the bill I will strongly support it.

The fact is that it has already passed, there's no public option or single payer system to compare with welfare or foreign-systems. People say it creates a dependent class, What are they being dependent on?! With no public option, what is it people will depend on?

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 05:44 PM
Where do I even start? Why should I even try? You really don't have the foggiest notion about what's going to happen, even though we've had examples from across the globe.


Guess what WeeWee, THEY ALL FAIL TO DELIVER AS PROMISED...

First of all, what people keep missing, is that this health care reform bill is NOTHING like the systems of other countries. NOTHING like European or Canadian or litereally every other advanced nation.

Comparing those are comparing apples and wombats.

If we want to talk about those systems on their own, I've got a huge folder filled with statistics and graphs that examine all aspects of health care in various countries compared to ours.

Megaguns91
04-09-2010, 05:47 PM
First of all, what people keep missing, is that this health care reform bill is NOTHING like the systems of other countries. NOTHING like European or Canadian or litereally every other advanced nation.

Comparing those are comparing apples and wombats.

If we want to talk about those systems on their own, I've got a huge folder filled with statistics and graphs that examine all aspects of health care in various countries compared to ours.

Can we change your title to resident moonbat? Because your lies and hypocrisy are starting to become entertaining to me. Literally. I just laughed out loud at this post.


Tread carefully everyone,

He has a folder full of statistics and graphs!

Jfor
04-09-2010, 05:51 PM
The Majority of Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000, we should know by now it's not as simple as that.


Hey fucktard, last time I checked it doesn't take a majority to get a President elected so once again, your argument is wrong. Do you know what the 10th Amendment is? Do you? Do you know and understand what it says? It is in plain English so it should be easy to read understand even for an idiot like yourself.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 05:59 PM
Can we change your title to resident moonbat? Because your lies and hypocrisy are starting to become entertaining to me. Literally. I just laughed out loud at this post.


Tread carefully everyone,

He has a folder full of statistics and graphs!

Well let's consider (and please look at my post history for all the proof you need) that I consistently provide data and facts along with their sources, while everything I hear from you guys is the exact same garbage I hear when I listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.


No facts, no data, no sources, just talking points.


By all means search my post history, I remain calm, I post facts, I post thought-out arguments, I look beyond the black-and-white style of thinking, and I respond to almost every post directed at me with arguments and evidence.

People respond back with personal insults, angry profanity, and silly pictures that were funny to high schoolers in 2002.

More people are covered, there are less health issues, and the amount of money spent on health care per capita is dramatically less than us.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:01 PM
Hey fucktard, last time I checked it doesn't take a majority to get a President elected so once again, your argument is wrong. Do you know what the 10th Amendment is? Do you? Do you know and understand what it says? It is in plain English so it should be easy to read understand even for an idiot like yourself.

I just stated "that's not how it works". I said "that's not how it works." It's not how it works, a simple majority, is not how it works, just simple public opinion is NOT HOW IT WORKS.

For the love of God read the entire post before making a fool of yourself.


let me try it again please read this slowly: A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE IS NOT THE SOLE FORCE IN POLITICAL ACTION.

Even in a Presidential election a simple majority vote is not needed to win.

The vast majority of people DID NOT SUPPORT Bush when he decided to sent a troop surge to Iraq towards the end of his term.

Saying "most people do not like it" doesn't mean anything. For the love of God our country is ranked 2nd lowest in terms of understand and acceptance of the theory of evolution, almost half of our population doesn't even believe in Evolution (we are only above Turkey in scientific literacy)

Just because most people think something doesn't mean anything.

Apache
04-09-2010, 06:03 PM
Can we change your title to resident moonbat? Because your lies and hypocrisy are starting to become entertaining to me. Literally. I just laughed out loud at this post.


Tread carefully everyone,

He has a folder full of statistics and graphs!

Entertained? Really? His woeful/willful ignorance is pissing me off....


Not to mention he has asked pretty much the same question over and over...

Jfor
04-09-2010, 06:04 PM
I just stated "that's not how it works". I said "that's not how it works." It's not how it works, a simple majority, is not how it works, just simple public opinion is NOT HOW IT WORKS.

For the love of God read the entire post before making a fool of yourself.

Then don't mention that in the damn argument dipshit. You ask why folks want it repealed? Go back and read the 10th Amendment and learning something for once in your socialist life.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:06 PM
The vast majority of public opinion was AGAINST the troop surge. Was it "rape" to do it anyway? Was it "treason"? was it "totalitarian"? was it "socialist"?

MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT IT

too bad most people don't know shit. the generals and commanders adviced Bush and he made the decision he felt was best and in this case it worked. If we followed the Tea Party Logic, it would have been best to impeach bush right away and prevent the troop surge because it WAS NOT POPULAR.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:07 PM
Entertained? Really? His woeful/willful ignorance is pissing me off....


Not to mention he has asked pretty much the same question over and over...

Willfull ignorance? I respond to almost every post addressed to me, I answer thoroughly and usually provide statistics and facts and sources to back it up, and if you mean "ignorant of conservative thought" well I listen to conservative radio and read conservative books so in what way am I "Ignorant"?

Unless of course by "ignorant" you mean disagreeing with you, which is a totally diffferent story.

JR2980
04-09-2010, 06:09 PM
The Majority of Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000, we should know by now it's not as simple as that.

Its absolutely as simple as that - It was a close race that could have gone either way - it didnt go your way so you're not happy. Thats fine, but at least you got to vote.

the American people didn't get to vote for this or it wouldn't have even been close.





No, my argument is that if democracy can work like the Tea PArty believes it can work, then the rational move is to see how this bill works, and if it fails then we can stop it and redirect the funding towards the debt.

Why should we be against something before most people even know what it is. Even now, after the bill has passed, some people believe there's a public option, some people believe we are now having single-payer, some people believe all sorts of nonsense.

Isn't the smartest decision is to see how it works, and judge it AFTER we know the facts, and if it's a failure we can shut it down.


I can agree with you that no one has any idea what this bill is going to do (but we can make an educated guess) - but that exactly why we shouldn't be taking a huge chunk of our economy that has the potential to devastate people and our economy and just trying something out and seeing how it works. That's a hell of a risk to take - why not wait, actually read the bill (I know, I know, a novel idea) and do something that we can have a better idea of how it will turn out.

Its not going into effect for 2 years, so why did it have to go through right now, before anyone had a chance to read and study it?




No repercussions? The right is trying to remove democrats because of this bill, and no one has even seen the effects of it yet. The bill comes into effect largely in 2014, an election year, if it is really that bad, that's the perfect time (AFTER WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT) to hold congress's feet to the fire.


We're trying to remove them because...

1 - they ignored the people, who they are to be representing

2 - they ignored the constitution which they are sworn to protect and uphold




The whole point is why are we judging something before we've ever seen the effects of it. That's ignorant!


No, actually that's life. Everything we do everyday we make judgments about without actually seeing the results. We take information that we have and we make a judgment about what we think the result will be and we act on it.





Except congress doesn't function like a private business. I'm not allowed to fire the mechanic in your example.

I didn't say you couldn't fire him - I sure as hell would!




Also, in the example the tires ARE bad, everyone knows the tires are bad, but i just don't know if I want the tires he gave me. I'm going to need new tires regardless, so if he gives me tires then I might as well test them out and if I don't like them I can fire the mechanic and take that money and put it towards my student loans. That sounds like a good deal.
[/QUOTE]

That's the most ignorant statement I've ever heard - you really mean to tell me that if you explicitly told your mechanic not to put new tires on your car, and he did it anyways, you'd be OK with that???

I didnt say he gave them to you, I said he billed you for them (we're not being given healthcare, we're being forced to buy it)
I don't care of my tires are worn down to the belts, if I told him not to replace them, he shouldn't replace him. It is not his decision - its mine

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:15 PM
Then don't mention that in the damn argument dipshit. You ask why folks want it repealed? Go back and read the 10th Amendment and learning something for once in your socialist life.

The commerce clause has been used to support a DEA arrest of a woman growing her own (state legal) medical marijuana for her own personal use in her own home.

The 10th Amendment was referenced, but the argument for this, despite the 10th amendment, was that the marijuana "could" enter the interstate market (even though it was clearly for her own personal use and she did not sell or distribute).

A woman grows her own plant according to her state laws for her own consumption in her own home and never had or intended to take any across state lines. Just because it "could" go across state lines, the Surpreme Court ruled that the commerce clause applied.


If the Supreme Court ruled this way in this case, why couldn't they use the commerce clause for the health bill (which clearly does have a lot of interstate transport, marketing, and sales of medicine and medical supplies)?


Basically, according to previous precident, this is not getting deemed unconstitutional.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 06:22 PM
Duh!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Stupid_people_tricks9982f4.jpg?t=1270851662

Articulate_Ape
04-09-2010, 06:23 PM
The commerce clause has been used to support a DEA arrest of a woman growing her own (state legal) medical marijuana for her own personal use in her own home.

The 10th Amendment was referenced, but the argument for this, despite the 10th amendment, was that the marijuana "could" enter the interstate market (even though it was clearly for her own personal use and she did not sell or distribute).

A woman grows her own plant according to her state laws for her own consumption in her own home and never had or intended to take any across state lines. Just because it "could" go across state lines, the Surpreme Court ruled that the commerce clause applied.


If the Supreme Court ruled this way in this case, why couldn't they use the commerce clause for the health bill (which clearly does have a lot of interstate transport, marketing, and sales of medicine and medical supplies)?


Basically, according to previous precident, this is not getting deemed unconstitutional.

WWW, just because the Constitution has more footprints on it than a volleyball beach court, that doesn't mean more trampling is justified. The Constitution is the foundation of the rule of law in this country and that foundation has been weakened by neglect. It is time to dispense with those things that are weakening it and get back to working within its very clear and well-defined framework.

What you are saying is that just because we have been driving in the wrong direction for so long we should keep on going the same way. I would say that such a notion is what Einstein was referring to when he uttered the quote in my sig.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:25 PM
This idea that "no one has read the bill" is just thrown around to allow people to make up whatever wild claims they want. Of course people read the bill, just because you haven't read it doesn't mean you can make up anything about it.



[quote]Its not going into effect for 2 years, so why did it have to go through right now, before anyone had a chance to read and study it?

It's been read and studied, and some effects go in this year, and taxes start sooner than benefits.






We're trying to remove them because...

1 - they ignored the people, who they are to be representing

2 - they ignored the constitution which they are sworn to protect and uphold

As muich as talk radio loves to preach that their listeners are the one solid only real legitimate Americans, it's just not true. Many people supported health reform.







No, actually that's life. Everything we do everyday we make judgments about without actually seeing the results. We take information that we have and we make a judgment about what we think the result will be and we act on it.

Yes, and action was made and the bill was passed. Clearly people don't have much information about this because every single day I have to tell people that this isn't a public option, this isn't a single payer system, there are no death panels.

Why don't we wait until after the program begins and see how effective it is, then we will have REAL information to make a REAL judgement.




That's the most ignorant statement I've ever heard - you really mean to tell me that if you explicitly told your mechanic not to put new tires on your car, and he did it anyways, you'd be OK with that???

The difference is that I'm a single person and I have my single opinion. Don't delude yourself into thinking that only Fox News viewers are the only "real" Americans. There are many people who disagree with you, and many who disagree with me, and many who disagree with both of us. Congress heard a lot from people who didn't like the bill, and they heard a lot form people who did. This "the world is made of good people like me and bad people who are not like me" is the most childish view of reality there is.

We're a nation of mixed opinions, and there was never a unilateral opposition to this bill.




I didnt say he gave them to you, I said he billed you for them (we're not being given healthcare, we're being forced to buy it)
I don't care of my tires are worn down to the belts, if I told him not to replace them, he shouldn't replace him. It is not his decision - its mine

No it's the decision of everyone who owns the car. It's not just YOUR car, it belongs to you and your spouse and maybe even your children.

The idea is that this isn't YOUR country. This isn't YOUR government. It's OURS.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 06:26 PM
This idea that "no one has read the bill" is just thrown around to allow people to make up whatever wild claims they want. Of course people read the bill, just because you haven't read it doesn't mean you can make up anything about it.





It's been read and studied, and some effects go in this year, and taxes start sooner than benefits.







As muich as talk radio loves to preach that their listeners are the one solid only real legitimate Americans, it's just not true. Many people supported health reform.








Yes, and action was made and the bill was passed. Clearly people don't have much information about this because every single day I have to tell people that this isn't a public option, this isn't a single payer system, there are no death panels.

Why don't we wait until after the program begins and see how effective it is, then we will have REAL information to make a REAL judgement.





The difference is that I'm a single person and I have my single opinion. Don't delude yourself into thinking that only Fox News viewers are the only "real" Americans. There are many people who disagree with you, and many who disagree with me, and many who disagree with both of us. Congress heard a lot from people who didn't like the bill, and they heard a lot form people who did. This "the world is made of good people like me and bad people who are not like me" is the most childish view of reality there is.

We're a nation of mixed opinions, and there was never a unilateral opposition to this bill.





No it's the decision of everyone who owns the car. It's not just YOUR car, it belongs to you and your spouse and maybe even your children.

The idea is that this isn't YOUR country. This isn't YOUR government. It's OURS.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/stupid_people.jpg?t=1270851932

JR2980
04-09-2010, 06:27 PM
The vast majority of public opinion was AGAINST the troop surge. Was it "rape" to do it anyway? Was it "treason"? was it "totalitarian"? was it "socialist"?

MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT IT

too bad most people don't know shit. the generals and commanders adviced Bush and he made the decision he felt was best and in this case it worked. If we followed the Tea Party Logic, it would have been best to impeach bush right away and prevent the troop surge because it WAS NOT POPULAR.


The Presidents job is to do what he thinks is best for the country, while the Congress is supposed to represent the people (Hence the title "Representative"). You're comparing apples to oranges.

That's why there is a congress and they generally have to work together to get things done - the only reason that Bush could send the troops for the surge is that Congress gave him the authority and funding. I don't have the exact figures either (maybe you can pull them out of your big folder of statistics), but I'd be willing to bet that the opposition to the surge was much closer to 50/50 and the opposition against THIS healthcare bill is a much wider margin than that. All of the polls that I saw - not just conservative polls, but all of them showed a wide margin of people against this particular healthcare bill.


I'm not here to defend the troop surge and not sure why you're changing the subject. Is your argument.... "Since they did it then, its ok for us to do it now???" That's a 1st grade argument that doesn't hold much water even on the playground.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 06:29 PM
The commerce clause has been used to support a DEA arrest of a woman growing her own (state legal) medical marijuana for her own personal use in her own home.

The 10th Amendment was referenced, but the argument for this, despite the 10th amendment, was that the marijuana "could" enter the interstate market (even though it was clearly for her own personal use and she did not sell or distribute).

A woman grows her own plant according to her state laws for her own consumption in her own home and never had or intended to take any across state lines. Just because it "could" go across state lines, the Surpreme Court ruled that the commerce clause applied.


If the Supreme Court ruled this way in this case, why couldn't they use the commerce clause for the health bill (which clearly does have a lot of interstate transport, marketing, and sales of medicine and medical supplies)?


Basically, according to previous precident, this is not getting deemed unconstitutional.

Your argument doesn't have any bearing whatsoever to this conversation. If the feds said she was able to grow her marijuana but she was only allowed to buy her seeds from ABC Marijuana Company, then your argument would be valid. In this case it isn't. As far as Obamacare goes, the feds are mandating that private citizens buy something from private companies. Those private companies who used to be in a risk analysis business are now forced into covering somebody they normally would not cover. So now, because they have to incur a larger risk vs a smaller reward they have a problem. Their expenses go up. So what do they do? Do they absorb that cost or pass it on? their investors would fire everyone on that board if they absorbed it so they are going o pass the cost on. Instead of healthcare getting cheaper it gets more expensive. For somebody who tries to sound damn smart, you really aren't.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:43 PM
Your argument doesn't have any bearing whatsoever to this conversation. If the feds said she was able to grow her marijuana but she was only allowed to buy her seeds from ABC Marijuana Company, then your argument would be valid.

The example was a case of what I see as a CLEAR and obvious violation of the 10th amendment, supported by the Commerce Clause using hypotheticals. It's so much easier to defend the health care mandate.


In this case it isn't. As far as Obamacare goes, the feds are mandating that private citizens buy something from private companies.

This is exactly why I want a Public Option for those who don't want to buy from a private company.


Those private companies who used to be in a risk analysis business are now forced into covering somebody they normally would not cover. So now, because they have to incur a larger risk vs a smaller reward they have a problem. Their expenses go up.

They aren't only adding people with pre-existing conditions, they are now adding millions of new customers. The bill is going to make everyone get health insurance, and as many have pointed out here, a good portion of these people are younger healthy people.

This means that they are getting millions of new monthly premium payments and a good portion of these new customers will not require much care, so I don't see their businesses going under.

It's like if I run a restaurant, and a law is passed saying that all ICED TEA should be free and every night two parties get their dinners free. This is a big cost to me, but if the law also requires that everyone in the city visit my restaurant at least once a week, then it more than makes up for the loss of revenue from the freebies.



So what do they do? Do they absorb that cost or pass it on? their investors would fire everyone on that board if they absorbed it so they are going o pass the cost on. Instead of healthcare getting cheaper it gets more expensive. For somebody who tries to sound damn smart, you really aren't.

You're only looking at the pre-existing condition patients and not the tens of millions of new customers who will be giving them money every month.

OH GOD THE PROFITS!


I've been saying for months that this bill is an Insurance Company Profit Protections Act of 2010.

JR2980
04-09-2010, 06:44 PM
This idea that "no one has read the bill" is just thrown around to allow people to make up whatever wild claims they want. Of course people read the bill, just because you haven't read it doesn't mean you can make up anything about it.


What have I "made up" about it?




It's been read and studied,


Maybe, but definitely not to the extent due to something of this magnitude




and some effects go in this year, and taxes start sooner than benefits.


But I thought President Obama wasn't going to raise anyone's taxes that makes less than 250K

(another subject for another day maybe)







As muich as talk radio loves to preach that their listeners are the one solid only real legitimate Americans, it's just not true. Many people supported health reform.


I know - I support health reform. Just not THIS Reform








Yes, and action was made and the bill was passed. Clearly people don't have much information about this because every single day I have to tell people that this isn't a public option, this isn't a single payer system, there are no death panels.

Why don't we wait until after the program begins and see how effective it is, then we will have REAL information to make a REAL judgement.


and the action that was taken is not supported by the majority of Americans - we dont want to wait until we've given the government more of our money for a couple of years, then "see if it works" thats BS. If you're ok wth that then you help fund this experiment - dont force the people that dont want to have any part of it to fund it also.





The difference is that I'm a single person and I have my single opinion. Don't delude yourself into thinking that only Fox News viewers are the only "real" Americans. There are many people who disagree with you, and many who disagree with me, and many who disagree with both of us. Congress heard a lot from people who didn't like the bill, and they heard a lot form people who did. This "the world is made of good people like me and bad people who are not like me" is the most childish view of reality there is.


Well, there's at least something that we agree on





We're a nation of mixed opinions, and there was never a unilateral opposition to this bill.


huh??? Sure there was, the Republican party unilaterally opposed it (no votes at all) Hell, even Dems didnt support most of it. They had to be bribed for their votes.





No it's the decision of everyone who owns the car. It's not just YOUR car, it belongs to you and your spouse and maybe even your children.


That may be true, but even if it is that still doesn't give the mechanic any right to force us to buy new tires




The idea is that this isn't YOUR country. This isn't YOUR government. It's OURS.

I agree - but its not your either, and not all the "ours" wanted this bill.

malloc
04-09-2010, 06:46 PM
This bill isn't anything like other countries, European or Canadian or literally every advanced nation. Our new plan is a fresh idea and the CBO has said it'll bring down the deficit. These things are obvious failed plans that other countries have enacted. No other country has passed a bill like ours.

Are you this ignorant on purpose? Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain, otherwise known as PIIGS or countries with the highest external debt going into default all have a nationalized or universal health care system which they cannot sustain. Our plan isn't new or fresh. It's good old fashioned failed socialism turned fascism manifested. What about our plan is new or fresh? Is it the part about mandated health insurance purchase like Germany? Is it the part about monetary shortfalls in the industry being subsidized by taxpayer money like every country in the E.U., including the PIIGS who are bankrupt? You are correct when you say no other country has passed a bill like ours only in the aspect that other countries have bankrupted themselves with far fewer pages of legislation.


Furthermore the CBO has redacted their deficit lowering announcement after being given a different set of variables. You obviously don't know how the CBO works, so let me help you. The CBO crunches the numbers based on assumptions given to them by the legislative body, even if those assumptions are pure fantasy. You change the assumptions and ask them to re-crunch the numbers and you get a different outcome. Furthermore, I think you miss the point of the whole thing. If we create $1.5 trillion in new taxes, and spend most of it, reducing the deficit by only $130 billion, why don't we just not spend any of it, and reduce the debt by the whole $1.5 trillion so my grandchildren won't end up paying it off?

See this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html).



Also just so you know, the "invisible hand of the market" is a delusion.


Also, just so you know, this is a big bold statement coming from someone who doesn't know Hayek from Friedman. You are out of your element and have no idea what you are talking about. Pretending that economic forces don't exist, and haven't been proven to exist, doesn't make them go away. Scarcity exists, and a free market is the single most efficient mechanism for distributing those scarce resources. If you think otherwise, you are an ignorant fool. I'm not your professor, I'm not your teacher and I'm certainly not responsible for your education. That being said, I'd suggest you brush up on your economic studies if you want to keep up with the rest of us. Start here (http://jim.com/econ/) and then go here (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/) and be educated so that you won't make a fool of yourself like this again.




No it's not. It's simply a commodity in very high demand, so prices are high and it makes health care an expensive resource, but it's not "scarce". We are the wealthiest nation in the world, with some of the lowest taxes of all advanced nations, there's nothing "scarce" about our resources except that it's scarce for the bottom 80% of the population.


A commodity in high demand, demand that is not met with supply, is nearly the exact definition of a scarce resource you ignorant jackass! You spew stupid on these forums like you actually believe you know what you are talking about, and then you pull this word game crap. There are an estimated 30 million out of a population of around 300 million without medical insurance. What kind of creative math does it take to turn 30 out of 300 into 80%? Especially given the fact that some of those 30 million have enough access and money to get medical coverage, however they choose not to so that they can spend that money on other things. You just made up that 80 percentile on the spot and you know it! You just abjectly believe in this very statistic your own mind made up. That's borderline insanity.





Actually no this is a ridiculously simplistic vision. In the 1950's and 60's tax rates for the wealthy were around 90%, about 10% for workers, and that period had the largest expansion of the middle class and the longest consistent drop in poverty in our nation's history. Our companies did great, unions were strong, and it only required a single working class income to sustain a middle class family with little debt.


More wistful, uninformed, nostalgic daydreaming. What about the recession in 1954 that peaked at 7% unemployment? What about the inflationary period from '50-'54? What about the sharp recession in 1957-58 where production dropped 14%, corporate profits dropped 25% and unemployment peaked at nearly 9%? Again, I'm not here to educate you, but you really should actually read the economic history of this period before commenting on it. The huge increases in indirect business taxes and social security are directly blamed for the lagging production and stagnant economy. Just another example of your cluelessness.



No. Oh for the love of God NO. This is exactly what's wrong with our political system, people are not only uneducated but they are encouraged to be so. They view themselves as knowledgable as the President "hurr anyone could do that job better". We are going to fall behind the rest of the world if we don't stop and realize that this isn't a game, macroeconomics isn't somethin that can be summed up in folksy middle class wisdom.


The only uneducated person I see around these parts is you, as I have just shown. This is typical liberal philosophy, "People don't know anything, they are stupid, they need a ruling class." You have no faith in the knowledge of your fellow Americans because of some narcissistic condition embedded in your brain. You believe people won't do what's best for themselves, which is why you don't believe in a free market. That's why you hate business and corporations. You see yourself as some sort of hero of the people, saving people from themselves. You said it yourself, "This is exactly what's wrong with our political system, people are not only uneducated but they are encouraged to be so.". So tell me, am I uneducated, or am I just not a person?




Without this bill the costs spent on healthcare would be far higher.


Based on what? Your decree that it shall be so? Also, higher than what? Higher than they would be without this bill? I seriously doubt that anything at all would have changed should this bill have failed. So tell me, how would they be higher and what scale are you comparing them to?




The problem is that so many Americans think they can have all the roses without the thorns. They want a plan that doesn't add to the deficit but they don't want taxes to go up. They want a plan that lowers costs but don't want a buy-in requirement. They want what conservative talk radio promises them over and over just to get them to the polls: comforting home-style solutions with no downsides. It's a fantasy and it's pathetic that so much of our electorate expects these things.


Again with the narcissism! You assume to know what Americans want! Based on what? Your fantasy ideas about the absolute ignorance of the stupid masses? That's whats really pathetic.



There already is someone between you and your doctor: your insurance company. They decide what they will cover and not cover, they influence doctors and hospitals in terms of practices, and they are just as bureaucratic. This bill aims to regulate that middle man who is already there.


No, this bill aims to force everyone to become a client of the middle man who is already there. So now there will be two bureaucracies between me and my doctor. I ask my doctor, my doctor asks the insurance company, and the insurance company asks the federal government. Yeah, that's really going to lower costs and increase efficiency.




Like I said, if this bill is as horrible as everyone makes it seems, wait a few years and see what it does, let the people decide AFTER they see the results. This is the most common sense position to take.


What you really mean to say is, "Let the people become dependent upon another trillion dollar, underfunded entitlement that will not serve their interests or address any of the real issues in the industry. Then see how far we can wreck our economy." It's not common sense, it's plain stupidity.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 06:48 PM
The example was a case of what I see as a CLEAR and obvious violation of the 10th amendment, supported by the Commerce Clause using hypotheticals. It's so much easier to defend the health care mandate.



This is exactly why I want a Public Option for those who don't want to buy from a private company.



They aren't only adding people with pre-existing conditions, they are now adding millions of new customers. The bill is going to make everyone get health insurance, and as many have pointed out here, a good portion of these people are younger healthy people.

This means that they are getting millions of new monthly premium payments and a good portion of these new customers will not require much care, so I don't see their businesses going under.

It's like if I run a restaurant, and a law is passed saying that all ICED TEA should be free and every night two parties get their dinners free. This is a big cost to me, but if the law also requires that everyone in the city visit my restaurant at least once a week, then it more than makes up for the loss of revenue from the freebies.




You're only looking at the pre-existing condition patients and not the tens of millions of new customers who will be giving them money every month.

OH GOD THE PROFITS!


I've been saying for months that this bill is an Insurance Company Profit Protections Act of 2010.

Simple question and simple answer. Do you support the Constitution as written? If yes, then you would realize how Obamacare is unconstitutional. If no, then you are a lost cause. It really is a black and white issue. There is no gray.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:58 PM
Simple question and simple answer. Do you support the Constitution as written? There's no such thing as a text without interpretation. Keeping that in mind, of course I support the Constitution.


If yes, then you would realize how Obamacare is unconstitutional.

No it's not. Please correct me but I'll tackle the main points:

The Mandate is Unconstitutional: No it's not because it's simply a new tax (perfectly constitutional) and some tax credits to encourage people to purchase insurance (perfectly constitutional as well).

10th Amendment issue: The commerce clause covers things that may even "potentially" cross state lines, as decided by previous Supreme Court cases. This health care reform involves a great deal of interstate transport, information, and activity so it's sort of a no-brainer.

Regulations on the insurance industry: Most industries have very high regulations and it's been that way for centuries, nothing unconstitutional about it.

If you think it's unconstitutional for another reason please explain,


If no, then you are a lost cause. It really is a black and white issue. There is no gray.

You're right, while the rightness or wrongness of this bill is a gray area, while the different proposals for reform are a gray area, this bill is NOT unconstitutional. That is black and white.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 06:59 PM
Simple question and simple answer. Do you support the Constitution as written? If yes, then you would realize how Obamacare is unconstitutional. If no, then you are a lost cause. It really is a black and white issue. There is no gray.

Also I like how you ignored that entire post, I'm going to predict that soon you will post those same talking points as if no one ever corrected you and when you do I'm going to link you to that post.

Jfor
04-09-2010, 07:01 PM
Wow... the commerce clause doesn't even cover this. It is a mandate to citizens to purchase or else you are fined.

Read this: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=27221

He makes a much better argument than you do. I am not Constitutional lawyer but even I know what you are typing is nothing but shit.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 07:02 PM
. . . . I support the Constitution.LIAR.

http://fruitfly.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/liar.jpg

Jfor
04-09-2010, 07:03 PM
Also I like how you ignored that entire post, I'm going to predict that soon you will post those same talking points as if no one ever corrected you and when you do I'm going to link you to that post.

I have addressed your points before. The addition of more people doesn't mean prices will go down. What it means is my rates will go up because the amount of risk is increasing. Your assumption is totally wrong in your post regarding requiring tea and whatever else bullshit you posted. Again, what you are proposing in your hypothetical is unconstitutional if a federal law.

Rockntractor
04-09-2010, 07:04 PM
Also I like how you ignored that entire post, I'm going to predict that soon you will post those same talking points as if no one ever corrected you and when you do I'm going to link you to that post.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/327323.jpg?t=1270854216

Jfor
04-09-2010, 07:05 PM
Also I like how you ignored that entire post, I'm going to predict that soon you will post those same talking points as if no one ever corrected you and when you do I'm going to link you to that post.

I also like how keep regurgitating the same shit over and over hoping that if repeat enough that everyone will think it is true.

malloc
04-09-2010, 07:40 PM
You're right, while the rightness or wrongness of this bill is a gray area, while the different proposals for reform are a gray area, this bill is NOT unconstitutional. That is black and white.


Read (http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills), Think (http://civicsnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/andrew-napolitano-on-constitutionality.html), Understand (http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/constitutionality-of-the-health-care-reform-law), then Speak. I know the concept is new to you.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 07:43 PM
Read (http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills), Think (http://civicsnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/andrew-napolitano-on-constitutionality.html), Understand (http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/constitutionality-of-the-health-care-reform-law), then Speak. I know the concept is new to you.

HOW DARE YOU OFFER RESEARCHED AND VERIFIABLE FACTS! :mad:

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 07:53 PM
Are you this ignorant on purpose? Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain, otherwise known as PIIGS or countries with the highest external debt going into default all have a nationalized or universal health care system which they cannot sustain.

No that's just not true.

The United States has the highest external debt, many times more than those European countries you are talking about. Those nations also have stronger currencies than we do, their workers get paid more than we do and get better benefits, their poverty rates are lower than ours, the income gap between the rich and poor is smaller, and despite it all their companies are very successful.

Our debt continues to rise because even though we do NOT have a national healt care plan we still spend more money on health care than any other nation while getting worse results (unless you are rich).



Our plan isn't new or fresh. It's good old fashioned failed socialism turned fascism manifested.

Dear God everyone loves this word and no one knows what it means. This plan protects the profits of the largest capitalist corporations. We have no public option, no single payer, there is nothing socialistic about this program at all.


What about our plan is new or fresh? All of the reforms, plans, and policies that are based on a free-market health system is new.


Is it the part about mandated health insurance purchase like Germany?

Except Germany has a 2-pronged plan including a Public plan (or Private plan if you choose), Germany offers multiple plan options for people with various degrees of health for maximum afford-ability and they rank towards the top in terms of life expecancy, infant mortality rates, and number of doctors per capita.


Is it the part about monetary shortfalls in the industry being subsidized by taxpayer money like every country in the E.U., including the PIIGS who are bankrupt?

Except some of these countries have single-payer systems. They have higher taxes (which balances out because they also have higher wages) so they make about as much as we do after taxes, and their health care is free.



Furthermore the CBO has redacted their deficit lowering announcement after being given a different set of variables. You obviously don't know how the CBO works, so let me help you. The CBO crunches the numbers based on assumptions given to them by the legislative body, even if those assumptions are pure fantasy. You change the assumptions and ask them to re-crunch the numbers and you get a different outcome. Furthermore, I think you miss the point of the whole thing. If we create $1.5 trillion in new taxes, and spend most of it, reducing the deficit by only $130 billion, why don't we just not spend any of it, and reduce the debt by the whole $1.5 trillion so my grandchildren won't end up paying it off?

That's exactly what I'm saying. If we let this bill continue, let those taxes buildup. If we like the program we reduce the deficit by $130 billion and get health care reform that people like. If the program is a failure we can halt funding and redirect all that tax money towards the debt.

It's win - win.




Also, just so you know, this is a big bold statement coming from someone who doesn't know Hayek from Friedman. You are out of your element and have no idea what you are talking about. Pretending that economic forces don't exist, and haven't been proven to exist, doesn't make them go away. Scarcity exists, and a free market is the single most efficient mechanism for distributing those scarce resources. If you think otherwise, you are an ignorant fool. I'm not your professor, I'm not your teacher and I'm certainly not responsible for your education. That being said, I'd suggest you brush up on your economic studies if you want to keep up with the rest of us.

I realize the legitimacy of these economic theories, but the "invisible hand" is a purely ideological tool to reject regulations under the presumption that "the market will work itself out". If someone is able to make incredible short-term gains at the expense of long-term failure even if it causes a recession or economic collapse, why wouldn't he?




A commodity in high demand, demand that is not met with supply, is nearly the exact definition of a scarce resource you ignorant jackass!

We aren't in short supply!. We send billions of dollars in medicine and supplies to other nations. The supply only seems short (and everyone is familiar with artificial supply manipulation) to increase, and as a result of, high prices.


You spew stupid on these forums like you actually believe you know what you are talking about, and then you pull this word game crap. There are an estimated 30 million out of a population of around 300 million without medical insurance. What kind of creative math does it take to turn 30 out of 300 into 80%? Especially given the fact that some of those 30 million have enough access and money to get medical coverage, however they choose not to so that they can spend that money on other things. You just made up that 80 percentile on the spot and you know it! You just abjectly believe in this very statistic your own mind made up. That's borderline insanity.

I didn't say 80% are uninsured, I said medical resources are scarce for 80%. They can still get it, but it's expensive for them. I used 80% because that's most of the middle and working class, the people who see rising health care prices as a problem.






More wistful, uninformed, nostalgic daydreaming. What about the recession in 1954 that peaked at 7% unemployment? What about the inflationary period from '50-'54? What about the sharp recession in 1957-58 where production dropped 14%, corporate profits dropped 25% and unemployment peaked at nearly 9%?

There was inflation, and corporate profits did drop, but family income rose, the middle class expanded, and poverty decreased.

However, there was a global recession in 1958, some attribute it to a decrease in raw materials which sustained our main economic force at the time (auto industry). Despite this, the incomes of working Americcans stayed the same.


Again, I'm not here to educate you, but you really should actually read the economic history of this period before commenting on it. The huge increases in indirect business taxes and social security are directly blamed for the lagging production and stagnant economy. Just another example of your cluelessness.

Well I'm glad you're here, you're far more informed, reasonable, and engaging than most here. Some people blame the federal reserve for 1958, in an attempt to prevent inflation they inadvertently helped stimulate a recession.

Still, I do not know everything and I don't know too much about this event to comment with any authority.



The only uneducated person I see around these parts is you, as I have just shown. This is typical liberal philosophy, "People don't know anything, they are stupid, they need a ruling class."

No.


You have no faith in the knowledge of your fellow Americans because of some narcissistic condition embedded in your brain.

Actually after posting here and all I ever read is "OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST MUSLIN HE'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS BACK TO KENYA!!" it's hard not to form a negative view of the intelligence of certain Americans. You're helping to change that though.

pquote] You believe people won't do what's best for themselves, which is why you don't believe in a free market. That's why you hate business and corporations. [/quote]

I don't think you can group middle class workers, small business owners, and billionare corporate CEO's into the same group. What's best for one isn't best for the other, and this is the flaw I find in the free market. I don't think we need to overthrow the system and start communism, but I believe that individuals (particulary those of the ruling class) have interests that are different from the interests of most Americans. I believe that middle class and working class Americans need to fight for their own interests.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 07:54 PM
Malloc,

I'll answer the rest of this post later, firstly I want to say I'm glad you're here.,

You're a breath of fresh air and the only one I've had on this forum in a long time.

I stated before that I like to surround myself with conservative media dn conservative people because it helps prevent me from deluding myself into thinking I know everything.

Unfortunately when most of the conservatives on this forum have no facts, have no real responses, react like children with foul language and petty insults, it only reinforces that sad delusion. I don't know everything, I haven't got it all figured out, and my presuppositions supporting my ideology are arbitrary, and I don't want to forget that.

Thankfully, someone like you comes along who disagrees with me but does it with argument, analysis, thought, references, and facts. You've inspired me to research some more about the recession in the 1950's and I feel a lot better after reading your post.

I don't want to think that "the other side are just stupid/crazy/brainwashed" like many conservatives and liberals say about each other because that's a weak, pathetic, and empty way of thinking. luckily people like you remind me that there are thoughtful and intelligent people who disagree with me, and force me to constantly re-evaluate my own positions.

I still disagree with you, brother, but you are responding like a rational adult. For the love of God please inspire your fellow conservatives to do what you are doing and maybe we can actually get real discussion done rather than petty politics.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 07:58 PM
No that's just not true. Prove it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:02 PM
Prove it.

No he's right. I was looking at absolute amounts, obviously America has most in absolute terms.

In terms of percentage of GDP and divided up by per-capita the European nations have far mroe external debt.

PoliCon
04-09-2010, 08:09 PM
No he's right. I was looking at absolute amounts, obviously America has most in absolute terms.

In terms of percentage of GDP and divided up by per-capita the European nations have far mroe external debt.

Prove it. I told you - you could tell me the sky was blue and I'm not going to believe you. PROVE IT. Stop being such a lazy fucktard and provide verifiable - RELIABLE - sources.

Wei Wu Wei
04-09-2010, 08:12 PM
Prove it. I told you - you could tell me the sky was blue and I'm not going to believe you. PROVE IT. Stop being such a lazy fucktard and provide verifiable - RELIABLE - sources.

Well I just checked wikipedia for this because I don't have any books on hand, but according to wikipedia he was right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Yes I know wikipedia isn't the best source but for statistical facts it's not bad for casual discussion

malloc
04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
No that's just not true.

The United States has the highest external debt, many times more than those European countries you are talking about. Those nations also have stronger currencies than we do, their workers get paid more than we do and get better benefits, their poverty rates are lower than ours, the income gap between the rich and poor is smaller, and despite it all their companies are very successful.

Our debt continues to rise because even though we do NOT have a national healt care plan we still spend more money on health care than any other nation while getting worse results (unless you are rich).


In terms of raw monetary amounts, we do have a higher debt. However, we also have much higher production. Looking at debt in terms of raw dollars will just confuse you. Put that debt in a ratio over GDP. We have a higher debt in raw monetary terms, but we also have the production to service and pay debt. The PIIGS do not. They are leeches, sucking on the teat of their own welfare state. Their higher wages, over unionized labor, and welfare programs spent them into the position where they can't service their debt with their production. Take Greece for instance, it's debt is 113% of GDP, and that is directly caused by it's welfare state. Our debt is currently hovering around 98% of GDP. That means we are currently at a point where we can't borrow our way out of an economic disaster like we did during the Great Depression. We had to borrow up to 120% of our GDP to escape those hard times, and then spent the next 50 years paying it down, because we had the production capability to do so at that time. According to the CBO's report on projected budgets. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdf) that debt will rise to 100% of GDB by 2012!

Anyone with a brain can see how this is unsustainable, and exactly why the U.S. cannot spend trillions on more welfare.





Dear God everyone loves this word and no one knows what it means. This plan protects the profits of the largest capitalist corporations. We have no public option, no single payer, there is nothing socialistic about this program at all.


"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state."
--James A. Gregor, The Search for Neofascism: The Use and Abuse of Social Science, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 7

"Socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"
-- The Dictionary

"Free Market: A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture."
-- The Dictionary

Yeah, I'm pretty damn sure I know what these terms mean, and I'm positive they were used correctly. I'm also pretty sure you didn't have a clue what economic fascism was before you read the definition I posted. You see, the liberals tried to nationalize the health care industry with the public option (socialism), that failed, so they decided to keep health care in private hands, but directly control it (fascism). See how that works?



All of the reforms, plans, and policies that are based on a free-market health system is new.


You see the definitions for free market and economic fascism above right? How then is this plan a free market approach? Your simply delusional if you think this is a free market plan.



Except Germany has a 2-pronged plan including a Public plan (or Private plan if you choose), Germany offers multiple plan options for people with various degrees of health for maximum afford-ability and they rank towards the top in terms of life expecancy, infant mortality rates, and number of doctors per capita.


My point was that mandatory purchase wasn't new.



Except some of these countries have single-payer systems. They have higher taxes (which balances out because they also have higher wages) so they make about as much as we do after taxes, and their health care is free.


Why do you think these countries are broke? Why do think their business sectors aren't thriving? Look at the economic outlook of Greece, Ireland and Spain! You want to bring that here? Are you nuts?




That's exactly what I'm saying. If we let this bill continue, let those taxes buildup. If we like the program we reduce the deficit by $130 billion and get health care reform that people like. If the program is a failure we can halt funding and redirect all that tax money towards the debt.

It's win - win.


Yeah, it's a win-win until it fails completey, and health care must be rationed, and we don't have enough doctors going into the business to service the growing population. Yeah, that's a win-win right there. Here's a news flash: Government programs that fail (Social Security, Medicaid, SCHIP) don't go away no matter how damn bad they fail. When you go so long living above your means, you are destined to then live below you means. We can't keep putting off the debts and entitlements we are building for future generations indefinitely.





I realize the legitimacy of these economic theories, but the "invisible hand" is a purely ideological tool to reject regulations under the presumption that "the market will work itself out". If someone is able to make incredible short-term gains at the expense of long-term failure even if it causes a recession or economic collapse, why wouldn't he?


How about you stop 'realizing the legitimacy' and actually read the text. The market does work, and it works without fascism much more efficiently than works with the heavy hand of government involved. If you haven't even read Hazlitt's Economics in One Simple Lesson, you have absolutely no business what so ever discussing the topic because you automatically come from a position of ignorance. The only economic theory you know are things you made up yourself or were spoon-fed by politicians who are lawyers and lobbyists, not economists.






We aren't in short supply!. We send billions of dollars in medicine and supplies to other nations. The supply only seems short (and everyone is familiar with artificial supply manipulation) to increase, and as a result of, high prices.



The concept of scarcity is essential to the field of economics. A resource is considered scarce when its availability is not enough to meet its demand (http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Economic_Scarcity). Read that link, and afterward you might have a better definition of scarcity and it's impacts. Then maybe you can get on the same page as the rest of us when we discuss economics and scarcity.



I didn't say 80% are uninsured, I said medical resources are scarce for 80%. They can still get it, but it's expensive for them. I used 80% because that's most of the middle and working class, the people who see rising health care prices as a problem.


From where did you get this 80% figure? If 80% of Americans really had a hard time visiting the doctor, I would imagine there wouldn't be quite as much anger and backlash over ObamaCare wouldn't you think? Please cite the research or survey you pulled this figure from, I'd like to read that work.






There was inflation, and corporate profits did drop, but family income rose, the middle class expanded, and poverty decreased.

However, there was a global recession in 1958, some attribute it to a decrease in raw materials which sustained our main economic force at the time (auto industry). Despite this, the incomes of working Americcans stayed the same.


What the hell are you talking about? If corporate profits drop, and monetary inflation causes price inflation, then there is no way in hell either wages, or the purchasing power of those wages could possibly rise. Seriously, look into it because your way out in left field here. Hell, I think even Penn and Teller did a Bullshit! episode on nostalgic daydreaming like this. For some reason, some idiots think the every family in the 1950's were all carbon copies of Leave It To Beaver and Happy Days. I got news for you. Back in the day Americans faced the same economic hardships we have been facing ever since the start of the 'Progressive Era' in 1913.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2010, 08:34 PM
A million new customers that you loose money on is no bargain.