Health care debate!

[SanHeChuan]

I read that the health care summit was good in that at least the republicans came prepared to actually debate and be part of the process rather than just shout propaganda and make irrational arguments AKA “death panels”.

Let’s have our own summit…

Point one, Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is access to health services without being buried under insurmountable debt a right? If you have a genetic condition that prevents you from getting health issurance should you be left to die, or burdened with millions of dollars of debt that you would never be able to repay?

Is afordable health care a right that everyone should have access to? If it is does out current system provide that right?

Point two, consumer protection. Does any feel that legislation is not needed to protect consumers from unethical practices by insurance companies, such as; raising the rates on sick and at risk people till they can no longer afford health insurance and default on their coverage. They can’t get insurance anywhere else because now they have a pre-existing condition. Or, denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or for being at risk, such as; deny coverage to babies who are healthy but outside the average weight for their age. Fat baby (http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2009m10d12-Fat-baby-No-insurance)& Skinny baby (www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2009m10d20-Skinny-Baby-No-insurance)

Does anyone feel consumer protection is not needed? Why?

Point three, mandatory insurance. Making insurance mandatory means that consumer protection will not drive insurance companies out of business, because they will have a larger pool of customers, more customers should also drive the price of insurance down. Insuring everyone will drive down the cost of health care not just insurance, and get more people to take more preventive health measures, like seeing a doctor before they collapse. However mandatory health insurance is not like mandatory car insurance, sure it’s good for everyone who drives, but you can opt out of owning a car and getting car insurance. There would be no option to pass on health insurance.

Is mandatory insurance really needed or not? Why?

Point four, public option. If you are going to mandate healthcare, how would you guarantee that everyone can afford it? If you’re living near or below the poverty line you can’t afford the basic (rent, utilities, food) bills you have let alone another one. A government option would be able to subsidize the insurance for the poor as well as drive down costs for the entire industry.

If you mandate health insurance does that make a public option necessary? Why?

Point five, piece mail or all at once. Since each of the major sections of health care legislation is connected, can we afford to do health care reform a piece at a time? Can we do some reform just skip the rest?

Keep it civil. :p

[1bad65]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to order all citizens to purchase something.

Second, it's not the Government's, ie the taxpayers, responsibility to take care of people.

Third, EVERY social program ever passed has been a financial disaster. Medicare and Social Security are due to go bankrupt within a decade or so, and now this fool wants the Government to take over heathcare???

[SanHeChuan]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to order all citizens to purchase something.

Your right, it should be free. ;)


Second, it's not the Government's, ie the taxpayers, responsibility to take care of people.

Why is it the governments/taxpayers responsibility to protect it's citizens i.e. the military, isn't that just another form of taking care of people?:confused:

Why is it the governments/taxpayers responsibility to provide; mail service, roads, education, libraries, anti-trust laws, police. Aren't those just other forms of taking care of people?:confused:


Third, EVERY social program ever passed has been a financial disaster. Medicare and Social Security are due to go bankrupt within a decade or so, and now this fool wants the Government to take over heathcare???

So, why not get rid of medicare and social security? who needs'em? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Your right, it should be free. ;)

Are you nuts?! How is it 'free'? There are costs involved and someone has to pay them. Why not the patient?


Why is it the governments/taxpayers responsibility to protect it's citizens i.e. the military, isn't that just another form of taking care of people?:confused:

Why is it the governments/taxpayers responsibility to provide; mail service, roads, education, libraries, anti-trust laws, police. Aren't those just other forms of taking care of people?:confused:

Well we need food to survive and shelter to live in. Why stop at healthcare? Just have the Government buy every one of us a house and pay for all the food we eat. After all, it would be 'free' then.


So, why not get rid of medicare and social security? who needs'em? :rolleyes:

I agree. Let me take care of my retirement. Let you take care of your retirement. Let people pay for their own medicine. It's really that simple.

[David Jamieson]

Are you nuts?! How is it 'free'? There are costs involved and someone has to pay them. Why not the patient?



Well we need food to survive and shelter to live in. Why stop at healthcare? Just have the Government buy every one of us a house and pay for all the food we eat. After all, it would be 'free' then.



I agree. Let me take care of my retirement. Let you take care of your retirement. Let people pay for their own medicine. It's really that simple.


You should be banned from using Libraries and all other community services provided by the people for the people. :D

If it is the will of the people to ensure that each and every person is covered for healthcare, then that is the will of the people.
I don't think you will understand the issue until you are broke and your family will owe your debt after you're dead because of some healthcare bills that piled up due to a genetic disease that you couldn't prevent by ignoring it and couldn't afford to treat.

It's easy for people of ways and means to look down on others who do not have same. It is wrong to deny your countrymen help and aid because they can't afford to pay for it.

That is shameful thinking in my opinion. To be more concerned with your wallet than your fellow man is also a problem from my point of view.

[SanHeChuan]

Are you nuts?! How is it 'free'? There are costs involved and someone has to pay them. Why not the patient?

It should be free the same way as everything else our taxes pay for, that kind of free. :eek: I think health care should be the responsibility of the government, for the common good of all Americans, just like national security. They're both about protecting Americans from dying, one at the hands of people the other dieses.

Why not the patient? Because who has 2 million to drop for a liver transplant? :rolleyes:


Well we need food to survive and shelter to live in. Why stop at healthcare? Just have the Government buy every one of us a house and pay for all the food we eat. After all, it would be 'free' then.

Generally people can afford their own food, and when they can't, we do give it to them free. It only cost about 200,000 dollars (assuming roughly 200 per month for 80 years) for a person to feed themselves for a lifetime. Health care costs average 1,200,000 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/how-much-does-health-care-cost-you/)over 80 years. The average income is 32,000 per year which would work out to 2,000,000 over 60 years of working. You can afford to blow your whole wad of 2million for just 2 years to get a liver transplant?

Why not get rid of the military and just require everyone to buy their own tanks and jets, like a militia? :rolleyes:


I agree. Let me take care of my retirement. Let you take care of your retirement. Let people pay for their own medicine. It's really that simple.

Well I can respect you opinion, but I don't agree.

No man is an island. The purpose of forming communities is for mutual benefit. People who just want to look out for themselves, should go live in the mountains. :p Obviously your not a total anachist, so you do believe in some cooperation. How do you decide what we should spend our taxes on?

[1bad65]

Again, show me in the Constitution where it says the Federal Government has the right to force all citizens to purchase something.

Second, Obama's plan takes like half a trillion dollars from Medicare.

Third, if this plan is so good and so fair, why is Congress exempted from it?

[1bad65]

It's easy for people of ways and means to look down on others who do not have same. It is wrong to deny your countrymen help and aid because they can't afford to pay for it.

I do look down on bums. And I do look down on people who can't support themselves (barring those will real disabilities of course). I've worked since I was 16. I didn't even graduate college. Yet I make more than the median income in my city and I have very good healthcare through my emplyer because I've worked my *** off. Why should I be forced to give the fruits of my labor to people who either refuse to work and/or are living a lifestyle they cannot afford?

[Luk Hop]

...If it is the will of the people to ensure that each and every person is covered for healthcare, then that is the will of the people......

There is a difference between will of the people and will of a party.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform


...It's easy for people of ways and means to look down on others who do not have same. It is wrong to deny your countrymen help and aid because they can't afford to pay for it..

One could also argue that it is wrong to expect your countrymen to give you help and aid when one could get off of their lazy as_ and get a job that provides coverage or purchase coverage if you are self employed (I did). It is not my fault if people do not take advantage of the education that all are provided when they are younger in order to further their own potential in life.


For those of you who want it, you may wish to check out the following:

http://radio.barackobama.com/

There are even some calling tips and discussion points for those who do not quite have the mental capacity for an original thought.

I find the step #3 to be interesting. (report your call)

[SanHeChuan]

Again, show me in the Constitution where it says the Federal Government has the right to force all citizens to purchase something.

So would you support a constitutional amendment to mandate government health care? ;) Just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it couldn't be add if needed. Although it’s not needed. :rolleyes:


Second, Obama's plan takes like half a trillion dollars from Medicare.

You don't think Medicare should exist so why would you care if the money comes from there.


Third, if this plan is so good and so fair, why is Congress exempted from it?

In what way are they exempt? They already have government health care plans.


You still haven't answered these questions.

Is affordable health care a right that everyone should have access to?
Does out current system provide affordable health care?
Do you feel consumer protection is not needed? Why?

I can infer your answers to the other ones.

[Drake]

How about instead of making everyone else pay for someone else's poor health choices and diabetes, we just identify why it is that medical costs are skyrocketing and do what we can to correct it? I am not cool with paying for someone's inability to quit smoking/drinking/eating and the health care costs that come with it.

[1bad65]

You don't think Medicare should exist so why would you care if the money comes from there.

Because the money they take from Medicare to pay for this stupid bill will have to be put back into Medicare. By doing this, they can claim this bill is "budget neutral". When in reality, the money taken from Medicare will have to put into it. It's a Ponzi scheme, and one even Madoff would be amazed at.


In what way are they exempt? They already have government health care plans.

They will be exempt from paying the "Cadillac tax" on thier robust plans, and since they are covered, they would not be forced to buy insurance.

Is affordable health care a right that everyone should have access to? No

Does out current system provide affordable health care? It does for most WORKING Americans. I'm happy with my plan. Polls do show more than 50% of Americans are happy with their current plans.

Do you feel consumer protection is not needed? Why? In what way? If you are referring to the quality of care, or being denied coverage under you current plan, we already hace it. It's called the legal system. Anyone is free to sue your provider for declining you treatment. And we are free to sue in the cases of malpractice as well.

I noticed you skirted the Constitutionality argument. Face it, the Founders never wanted the Federal Government to have this power. That's why they gave us the 10th Amendment.

[1bad65]

How about instead of making everyone else pay for someone else's poor health choices and diabetes, we just identify why it is that medical costs are skyrocketing and do what we can to correct it?

What are you talking about? As San pointed out, if the Government pays for it, it's free. ;)

[SanHeChuan]

They will be exempt from paying the "Cadillac tax" on their robust plans, and since they are covered, they would not be forced to buy insurance.

Well the Cadillac Tax like the rest of their plan would be paid by the tax payers so why wouldn't you want them to be exempt.

No one who already who already has insurance would be forced to buy insurance.


Is affordable health care a right that everyone should have access to? No

Who should be denied health care? Fat babies? :confused:


Does out current system provide affordable health care? It does for most WORKING Americans. I'm happy with my plan. Polls do show more than 50% of Americans are happy with their current plans.

Have you ever had to use your issuance for anything serious?

They should poll the sick people to see if they are satisfied (http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/08/02/are-americans-really-satisfied-with-their-health-insurance/).

When Health Insurance Isn't Health Insurance (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/16/when-health-insurance-isnt-health-insurance/)

86.2 percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx) of Canadians are satisfied with their health care, which is 36.2 percent better than your stat, so obviously we should switch by your logic. ;)

If we got it so good why does the World Health Organization rank us 37 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)?


Do you feel consumer protection is not needed? Why? In what way? If you are referring to the quality of care, or being denied coverage under you current plan, we already have it. It's called the legal system. Anyone is free to sue your provider for declining you treatment. And we are free to sue in the cases of malpractice as well.

In this case I mean being denied coverage, being denied insurance in the first place, and raising your rates after you get sick, and everything else they try to do, to NOT do what you're paying them for.

The legal system costs money too, that sh!t ain't free, and the insurance companies have way more money. Maybe if you could take them to the people's court. :D


I noticed you skirted the Constitutionality argument. Face it, the Founders never wanted the Federal Government to have this power. That's why they gave us the 10th Amendment.

They never intended women to vote either. :rolleyes:

If I skirted it, it’s because it's not a good argument, the constitution is not set in stone, and THAT's what the founders intended.

[mawali]

Let people pay for their own medicine. It's really that simple.
but I distrust most people who say stuff like that and I hate the Republican mantra that is so good at smoke and mirrors like some Democrats.
The fact is if certain people have some kind of social benefit, they thumb their nose at others as if to say "I have mine so you go and get yours" while they get away with their version of a socialized health care system. I dislike lazy people like any other but I hate those would approve corporate welfare for the rich while at the same time refusing social equity for those less fortunate!

I use the word "social equity programs "for those less fortunate because the rich and corporate already have their professional pimping politicians interests in their pocket and this will increase, and has begun already.

If Republican are so united, then as a group they should explicitely tell the American that Social Security and Medicare should be abolished. That is the only way to tell who is the real American amongst us. Istead they play all those games like some Democrats who have become more craft than Wily Coyote (Cayoti).

Just had to say that while it was on my mind!
God Bless America

[dimethylsea]

1Bad65,

Honest question for you.

Do you think enough of the idea of free markets in medicine to think that mandatory medical licensure is a mistake? I.e. is it right that people can be tried in court and put in jail for "practicing medicine without a license"? Even if they clearly say "I am not a M.D./physician"?

Is it right that the government should restrict the sale of medications (and I'm referring to low/no-abuse potential meds like antibiotics or HCTZ) to those who have a order from a government blessed doctor, physician assistant or nurse-practioner (i.e. a licensed primary care provider)?

My thinking goes like this.
If you honestly believe in non-interference by government in healthcare then how can one support medical licensure laws and classifying of medicines and medical devices as "by order of a physician only"?

Now if someone thinks goverment has the right/duty/responsibility to meddle in healthcare.. then obviously they might think it's only a matter of what is "practical" and "most effective" (I think Obama and most Demos feel this way).

What confuses me is how some people rail against "goverment involved in healthcare" but they think it's ok for government to meddle in licensure, all kinds of malpractice and practice laws, fund medicare, support monopolies by various groups etc.

I don't see how they can justify this.

You don't like goverment in healthcare. Is this because you think it's wrong for goverment to do so (and if so.. is it ok to have them licensing M.D.s and all the other stuff? why?)... and if you don't think it's wrong for goverment to meddle in principle.. is it only that you don't think *this particular type* of meddling will prove impractical and be a failure?

This isn't an argumentative question btw.. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you stand and why.

[1bad65]

1Bad65,

Honest question for you.

Sure thing. I always answer questions posed to me. It's how people should debate and compare ideas.


Do you think enough of the idea of free markets in medicine to think that mandatory medical licensure is a mistake? I.e. is it right that people can be tried in court and put in jail for "practicing medicine without a license"? Even if they clearly say "I am not a M.D./physician"?

Is it right that the government should restrict the sale of medications (and I'm referring to low/no-abuse potential meds like antibiotics or HCTZ) to those who have a order from a government blessed doctor, physician assistant or nurse-practioner (i.e. a licensed primary care provider)?

For the first part, I do agree with the Government licensing physicians, to an extent. By that I mean the patient has the right to know the doctor they see is licensed if he has MD after his name. Practicing without a license, and not clearly informing the public, should indeed be a crime. Now if someone wants to open say a holistic medicine clininc, and is not a licensed physician, they should be free to as long it's clearly posted the practicioner is not licensed by the Government. The patient should also have to sign a release saying he/she understands the practicioner is not licensed by the Government.

I think the Government should do similar to what is being done now. License certain medications, like narcotics, muscle relaxers, etc, but not the the "low/no-abuse meds". Keep in mind, I could care less if someone wants to take a ton of muscle relaxers and risk death for a high. That's their business. But those do need to be regulated, as someone could abuse them at other's expense, say by spiking someone's drink/food for bad purposes.


What confuses me is how some people rail against "goverment involved in healthcare" but they think it's ok for government to meddle in licensure, all kinds of malpractice and practice laws, fund medicare, support monopolies by various groups etc.

Even though Govenrment has passed laws and meddled, it is still ultimately an American citizen's right to have a jury trial. The Government cannot put you in prison without a guilty plea or a conviction by your peers. I firmly believe in jury nullification in CERTAIN instances. If I was on a jury for a guy being tried for practicing medicine without a license, and his defense was that he openly told every patient he was not a lilcensed doctor (and he proved that), I would not vote to convict him.


You don't like goverment in healthcare. Is this because you think it's wrong for goverment to do so (and if so.. is it ok to have them licensing M.D.s and all the other stuff? why?)... and if you don't think it's wrong for goverment to meddle in principle.. is it only that you don't think *this particular type* of meddling will prove impractical and be a failure?

This isn't an argumentative question btw.. I'm trying to figure out exactly where you stand and why.

The Government does not need to meddle when it involces them giving someone something that someone else earned, like "free" health insurance. That's wrong. It's also wrong (and quite honestly criminal, imo) for the Government to have the final say in who does and who does not receive treatment. This a very slippery slope. Very, very evil Government/dictators have used weapons like choosing who is worth medical procedures and who is not worth medical procedures. It's something that free people should be, quite frankly, terrified of giving that power to any Government.

[dimethylsea]

1Bad65,

It sounds like your position on health care is internally consistent with a libertarian position. Most libertarians take the position that while people should be free to do as they choose, FRAUD is selling a service dishonestly.
Saying "I am an M.D." when you are not is fraud, and should be punished the same as selling land or property when the contract says "the title for this property is unencumbered and is for the the following boundaries" when (in fact) the land title is not encumbered.

Basically from a libertarian point of view selling the services of an M.D. when you are not an M.D. is "fraudulent conveyance of services". And since this is a service is one which concerns one's health and life then "fraudulent conveyance of health services" is morally equivalent to assault on one's life (possibly attempted murder depending on the treatment given) since the patient is consenting to the treatment *with the proviso that they are being treated by a person with an authentic Medical Doctor's degree and whatever certification the doc is supposed to have".

You said that certain medications with potential to be used as covert weapons might be restricted. While this is consistent with a "minimalist" view of government a true libertarian would argue that "the right to bear personal arms is absolute".
However anyone who used such substances against a non-consenting party (i.e. sereptitiously) would obviously be guilty of assault/attempted murder/murder. Just like putting a gun to someone's head.

I do find it extremely encouraging that you are aware of the concept of jury nullification and would vote your own conscience with respect to practice laws (i.e. if the services provider was absolutely honest with the patient about his credentials or lack thereof).

Under the circumstances I can see why government/socialized medicine would be anathema to you.

If the goverment were willing to allow truly free market medicine in line with a libertarian position then I would be all for it. Honestly I don't think people are willing to put up with it though. We have medical monopolies (the AMA etc.) who wish to guarantee their own expensive services and they have lots of clout when it comes to lobbying.

[David Jamieson]

yeesh, and what of the abjectly impoverished? the mentally ill? How do you sort a chronic unemployment number that is rising? Are you actually going to tell people to get a job in an environment where they are few and those that come with any sort of reasonable health care package that can sustain not only the worker but his or her family is fewer still.

Really? You're going with the "I worked since I was 16" thing?
Why not say you are selfish and don't want to help your fellow citizens?

I mean, what's the difference between paying for safe roads, which not everyone chips in for, in fact, if you do not own property, you are not paying for them and you know what? While you were working at the age of 16, all the tax payers before you built that road you took your first car out on. If you don't own a house, you are the free loader, if you do own one, but didn't while you drove your first auto, then you're a back door socialist user!

j'accuse!!!

lol

i can see how everyone has the absolute right to know exactly how it's going to go down. But to shout it all down without even understanding it is folly.

smokers and diabetics are the new hate? How about kids tat are born without limbs and the prosthetic cost thousands and not because there's a prosthetic scam going on, but that is the cost of doing business and employing people to make them etc etc.

you want all the business kept in America so everyone can have a job and pay their way? then shut down wal mart because they outsource EVERYTHING.

You can raise sin taxes. IE: you know smokes give cancer, why make em cheap, why not price them prohibitively so kids don't start and the people who insist on their right to smoke themselves to death can pay for their own health care with every puff.

why not do the same with liquor? beer?wine? none of these things are necessary and why not tax them to ensure that alcoholics who can't get their act together can at least get some health care when their brain breaks.

as for not caring about those less fortunate than you in your own country, well shame on you. I have nothing to say to you about that except that. :)

[1bad65]

Thanks Dime.

You are indeed correct, I'm a Libertarian. I actually call myself more of a strict Constitutionalist. This Gov't heathcare is indeed terrifying to someone like me.

[1bad65]

yeesh, and what of the abjectly impoverished? the mentally ill? How do you sort a chronic unemployment number that is rising? Are you actually going to tell people to get a job in an environment where they are few and those that come with any sort of reasonable health care package that can sustain not only the worker but his or her family is fewer still.

Americans are the most giving people in the world. You may despise us, but look at humanitarian aid. Show me one country who gives more. President Bush gave more FREE aid to Africa than any other President. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Also, during roaring economic times, we give. And of our own choosing. During the 'Greedy 80s' charitable donations were up.


Really? You're going with the "I worked since I was 16" thing?
Why not say you are selfish and don't want to help your fellow citizens?

That ticked me off. First off, I have worked since I was 16. Is this upsetting to you? Why? Second, you don't know a **** thing about me. You have no idea who I give to and how much. You don't know if I do volunteer work. So don't make statements about me when you don't know me.


I mean, what's the difference between paying for safe roads, which not everyone chips in for, in fact, if you do not own property, you are not paying for them and you know what? While you were working at the age of 16, all the tax payers before you built that road you took your first car out on. If you don't own a house, you are the free loader, if you do own one, but didn't while you drove your first auto, then you're a back door socialist user!

You have no idea how things work down here. FYI, gasoline taxes, inspection fees, registration fees, and tolls are ways our roads are paid for. So since the day I began driving, I've been paying for the roads I use. Also FYI, our property taxes mainly go to fund education, not roads.


you want all the business kept in America so everyone can have a job and pay their way? then shut down wal mart because they outsource EVERYTHING.

Is that your solution? To fix high unemployment by shutting down a major employer? :eek:

What needs to be done is to make it easier/cheaper to run a business here in the US than abroad. The ONLY reason companies outsource is cost. When it's cheaper to do business in Communist China than in the US, there is a huge problem. Of course Obama's solution is to regulate and tax business more.


as for not caring about those less fortunate than you in your own country, well shame on you. I have nothing to say to you about that except that. :)

Again, how can you say that when you have no clue what I do or don't do in terms of charity and giving? So please shut up about things you know nothing about.

Cold hearted as though it may sound, my first responsibility is to my family. Not anyone else. If I CHOOSE to give, that's my business, but it should always be my CHOICE.

[Drake]

Aid to Africa annoys me. Ungrateful and they squandered virtually every dime of it.

[David Jamieson]

Americans are the most giving people in the world. You may despise us, but look at humanitarian aid. Show me one country who gives more. President Bush gave more FREE aid to Africa than any other President. Bet you didn't know that, did you?
You immediately hide behind your creation of "you despise us". So, the fabric starts to fall apart there. Americans being the most giving is debatable. On one end it is about "what" you give to the world, on the other end is "why" and thirdly, in between, the cost of it to the people who get given to. lol


Also, during roaring economic times, we give. And of our own choosing. During the 'Greedy 80s' charitable donations were up. Really? So you run to statistics? BTW, statistics can be used to prove anything. I can show you that you gave less than Canada by manipulating stats. Your argument here is empty and as well, meaningless in context to what I said about the 80's. Also, don't even start to obfuscate the argument here with your demands for stats that you commonly throw out in order to defend your position through time wasting. It's a crappy tactic and I won't stoop to it,




That ticked me off. First off, I have worked since I was 16. Is this upsetting to you? Why? Second, you don't know a **** thing about me. You have no idea who I give to and how much. You don't know if I do volunteer work. So don't make statements about me when you don't know me. I don't care if you worked in a salt mine, your view is myopic, I worked since before I was 16 and I continue to do so and I pay taxes and support health acre availability to each and every of my countrymen and I don't mind paying the taxes to cover it or supporting the government in their implementation of sin taxes to help with it.




You have no idea how things work down here. FYI, gasoline taxes, inspection fees, registration fees, and tolls are ways our roads are paid for. So since the day I began driving, I've been paying for the roads I use. Also FYI, our property taxes mainly go to fund education, not roads. Depends on the state you live in and the tax base compared to the need to build infrastructure. I do understand how it works man, it really isn't a world apart from Canada you know...oh I guess you didn't and you think we have some kind of Kenyan legal system and tax structure up here due to us liking Obama or something? I can safely say, I probably know more about your country than you can ever know about mine. I say that about pretty much most americans due to the fact that the most well traveled americans are unfortunately it's soldiers, so americans tend to have the least worldly opinions on things. Statisically, it's a good bet that your average american has never even been out of america.




Is that your solution? To fix high unemployment by shutting down a major employer? :eek: Major employer that doesn't provide health benefits of any real substance to most of it's workers, will not permit unions and pays as little as possible to it's employees and buys goods that are not made in america with as much frequency as possible. Yes, wal mart is messing with your economy. If all you see is employees, then again, you are myopic in your outlook.


What needs to be done is to make it easier/cheaper to run a business here in the US than abroad. The ONLY reason companies outsource is cost. When it's cheaper to do business in Communist China than in the US, there is a huge problem. Of course Obama's solution is to regulate and tax business more.

why on earth do you blame Obama for wheels that have been turning before he set foot in office. This is just a stupid and vindictive statement. Which coming from you is all too common actually.

as for you professing to be libertarian, well that's laughable! I find that many neo-cons like to hide behind that label.

Whatever man, your politics are idiotic as far as I'm concerned, I'll just let you continue to shout at bowlder dog now. :rolleyes:





Again, how can you say that when you have no clue what I do or don't do in terms of charity and giving? So please shut up about things you know nothing about.

Cold hearted as though it may sound, my first responsibility is to my family. Not anyone else. If I CHOOSE to give, that's my business, but it should always be my CHOICE.

[David Jamieson]

Aid to Africa annoys me. Ungrateful and they squandered virtually every dime of it.

"they" who is "they"?

[1bad65]

as for you professing to be libertarian, well that's laughable! I find that many neo-cons like to hide behind that label.

Well let's see, I'm fiscally conservative and pretty liberal socially. Sounds like a libertarian. But to liberals anyone who likes free enterprise is a "neo-con". Par for the course.


Whatever man, your politics are idiotic as far as I'm concerned, I'll just let you continue to shout at bowlder dog now. :rolleyes:

Of course you're done with me. You can't refute a single fact I pointed out.

We are the most giving country in the world. And I myself give about 40% of my money to our Government. So I'm a very giving person, and that's not even counting what I CHOOSE to give either.

[David Jamieson]

Well let's see, I'm fiscally conservative and pretty liberal socially. Sounds like a libertarian. But to liberals anyone who likes free enterprise is a "neo-con". Par for the course.



Of course you're done with me. You can't refute a single fact I pointed out.

We are the most giving country in the world. And I myself give about 40% of my money to our Government. So I'm a very giving person, and that's not even counting what I CHOOSE to give either.


I've refuted everything that you have presented as a "fact" where haven't I?
The fact of the matter is this.

almost 50 million Americans or 1 in 6 has no health care coverage.
Of the people with health care coverage, if they get laid off, they lose that for themselves and for their families under the current model.

For the dollar it will cost you per month, you are going to complain so vehemently that people's health is taken care of?

Do you think you'll be paying some immigrants 50k doctor bill all by yourself or something.

Dude, you come across as a selfish, heartless a-hole who doesn't care about his countrymen. Denying people health care based on you don't want to shell out the pennies it will take to make your effort to ensure that every american is covered?

You're just a cheap jerk. You talk about how you give to Africa, but you don't complain that you give to Africa? You complain about helping your fellow citizens? I believe your own president has crushed your feeble argument regarding Health Care anyway, so thankfully, it's not twits like you that vote in policy. Also, he crushed the positions of those idiot republicans who were actually stupid enough to take on the issues coming from the same myopic and feeble position of selfish greediness like yourself.

I guess you'll have to rise up and go back in time or something. lol

[Drake]

"they" who is "they"?

Uh... the countries we've donated to? That wasn't exactly cryptic.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It all boils down to quality of life and one simple question:
Do you have it?
http://smithbeachwood.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/demotivational-posters-life-is-good.jpg