Outstanding Article

[USFREEDOM911]

It's called priorities unless you feel the financial crisis didn't deserve to be considered a priority.

So saith the Obamapologist.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[apple0154]

There's no question about it, you are what you are; but it has nothing to do with what Obama is or isn't doing, it has everything to do with you hitching your wagon to his star and now you don't dare let go.

It has to do with seeing the results of the last eight years. Any wagon heading in any direction other than the direction of the Bush years is worth jumping on.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It has to do with seeing the results of the last eight years. Any wagon heading in any direction other than the direction of the Bush years is worth jumping on.

So saith the Obamapoloigist

 

[cawacko]

After the Bush years the majority of people had enough regardless of why they supported the Repubs. I think people don't realize just how much Bush screwed things up. The repercussions of eight years of either weakening the government's ability to govern or simply looking the other way will take time to correct. The philosophy or mindset that has occurred has to be changed.

The more things come to light the actual situation we find ourselves in starts to sink in. An analogy would be driving a thousand miles in the wrong direction and then complaining why we're still west of where we started and not east. It takes time to get back to the "starting point".

For example, when people ask why the banking laws aren't simply changed back it's because the operating procedures that were followed during the years of repeal have to be dealt with. That's why Obama hired one of those guys from Wall Street. The repercussions and every day policies have to be examined.

Another analogy would be building a house and finding out when half finished the builders had the wrong plans. They can't just switch to the proper plans. They have to see how the new plans fit in with what has already been done.

The banks and insurance companies have an ongoing business modeled/operating under little regulation. How do we keep them operating while making changes? We can't just outlaw procedures that their business is currently operating on. The change has to be gradual or further collapse will occur.

It's not a point of being partisan. The criticism of Obama is illogical, from the financial fiasco to the wars. Things were set in motion. It's going to take time to redirect.

So Bill Clinton signs Glass-Steagal which you believes lead to the financial meltdown. Yet it's Bush's fault for supposedly not seeing what problems it would cause in the future and calling for it to be put back into place. And now that we know how bad it supposedly was Obama is ok for not calling for it to be put back into place.

There is no principle there. You are just bashing Bush because you don't like him. That is your right of course but I originally had given you credit for making a principled argument which to me at least is a lot more fun to discuss than the usual partisan b.s. rhetoric that flows. Now I see you are just partisan bashing like most others.

 

[cawacko]

It's called priorities unless you feel the financial crisis didn't deserve to be considered a priority.

Well the financial crisis isn't through and yet you say Obama doesn't have time to put Glass-Steagal into place because of wars and health care. So the financial crisis isn't a priority to him or you I see.

 

[cancel2 2022]

So saith the Obamapoloigist

That's sayeth not saith, forsooth Dumbo has pretensions to be a Shakespearean actor.

 

[apple0154]

A complete (deliberate) misunderstanding of the argument. CONGRESS has the sole power to make law. Glass-Steagall act was a law. Repeal of the Glass Steagall act is a law. Only congress can do that. The president has zero authority to tell congress what they should or should not pass. A president can make suggestions, but if congress ignores those suggestions there is nothing he can do about it. The president can shout it to the rooftops. If congress won't act, there is still nothing can be done. The president can take it to the people. When is the last time you actually believed congress gave a shit what the people think when they've made up their minds?

Oh, maybe when Iraq was being discussed. What was Bush doing on TV all those times? Why didn't he just twitter Congress and get the war going?

Is it truly necessary, as you liberals claim, for government to take full control of the health care situation in order to provide health care to everyone?

Yes, it is. It has been shown the world over.

Or is there a better method available (on which you cannot see because you are blinded by your arrogance in assuming you have the only right answers) which can provide for those in need…..

Not blinded by arrogance. Maybe blinded by facts and statistics. Maybe blinded by knowing every country that switched to a universal system never reverted to the old one. Maybe blinded by the knowledge that taking into account all the countries with universal medical there is not one political party in any country campaigning on dismantling it.

As I’ve asked before, “Give me something to work with.” Show me a country where the citizens are clamoring for a return to a “pay or suffer” system and let’s not forget every country started out with a “pay or suffer” system. Every one of them and not one changed back or is trying to change back.

If you understand the preceding paragraph what is your argument(s) based on? Do you feel the US is the only country not capable of handling a universal system? I don’t see any other argument you can offer because it has been shown the world over that governments handle medical systems better than private interests. The citizens in every country agree so what else can your argument be based on other than you feel the US government is, in some fashion, incompetent? Or do you just not give a damn about others? I suppose I shouldn’t leave that option out.

The number one lie of the left. If you don't want government to control things, you don't care about the poor. "Conservatives are selfish." Why? Because we do not agree with liberal solutions which invariably grant more and more power of the government over our every day lives?

What, exactly, is the control when governments tax for welfare? Would Conservatives be happy if the government simply paid for the medical treatment that others couldn’t afford?

The reason governments have compulsory plans such as SS and others is because people won’t help others unless they’re getting something back. What government plan implemented to help others results in the government having more power over your life? Or is “power” a euphemism for taxing? What is the government forcing you to do other than help people?

No one is obliged to cash their SS check or take any help from the government.

Yea, whatever lets you sleep at night in you moral-superiority delusions of grandeur.

It has become readily apparent to anyone that you are completely head-up-the-donkey's-ass partisan. "OH! OH! Democrat GOOD! Republican BAD!. Please, mommy government, won't you tuck me in tonight?"

Moral superiority? Is that what you call it when people believe those in need should receive help?


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Bad analogy because the President has the constitutional authority to deploy the military as necessary without the approval of congress. It takes congress to declare war, and the war powers act is used as a check against presidential authority. But when it comes to defending against an attack, the president's authority does not require congress.

Maybe you need to learn a bit more about how our government works before you spout off your criticisms.



A complete (deliberate) misunderstanding of the argument. CONGRESS has the sole power to make law. Glass-Steagall act was a law. Repeal of the Glass Steagall act is a law. Only congress can do that. The president has zero authority to tell congress what they should or should not pass. A president can make suggestions, but if congress ignores those suggestions there is nothing he can do about it. The president can shout it to the rooftops. If congress won't act, there is still nothing can be done. The president can take it to the people. When is the last time you actually believed congress gave a shit what the people think when they've made up their minds?


Is it truly necessary, as you liberals claim, for government to take full control of the health care situation in order to provide health care to everyone? Or is there a better method available (on which you cannot see because you are blinded by your arrogance in assuming you have the only right answers) which can provide for those in need while leaving be the rest of the system - which works quite well for the larger majority of people? If out of control health care costs is the central problem (which it is) why are we not finding and addressing the factors which are driving health care costs at 10 times the inflation rate? But NO! Liberals cannot think for themselves. Give the problem to government. They are so GOOD at fixing things. I mean, look at the problem of poverty. Big liberal programs have been in action for 70 years, and poverty is higher than ever. Great fix you guys have. Let's do it to health care, too.

But liberals simply claim (quite falsely) that the system is "broken" because it does not operate in the manner they believe it should (beliefs derived from hallucinogenic induced dreams of utopia.) If so, maybe these self same liberals should try to actually determine WHY the system is "broken". (ie: vast and often conflicting government regulations on everything health care, from drugs to scalpels to how we dispose of used needles.) But being "broken" (due to government) the answer is to hand it all to government.



The number one lie of the left. If you don't want government to control things, you don't care about the poor. "Conservatives are selfish." Why? Because we do not agree with liberal solutions which invariably grant more and more power of the government over our every day lives?

Tell us, since conservatives do not care, but liberals do, why is it conservatives are, on average, significantly more generous to charities than liberals are?


Yea, there are a few out there. Shall we discuss some of the more extreme statements coming from the left? How about if we start using some of Watermark's one liners to portray the "average" liberal?

Though the two quotes are about entirely different circumstances, and therefore do not belong together, except in the mind of a liberal drone who cannot understand the difference. Letting people in need scramble on their own is a far cry from letting a large corporation go bankrupt. Especially when in tha vasst majority of cases when a major corporation goes through bankruptcy, the result is a stronger, better organized corporation which is good for the economy, and good for the corporation's employees. We pumped how many billions into GM? And yet, what was it that finally allowed GM to get back on their feet? They went through the bankruptcy that we spent billions trying to stave off.

Again, try learning something about how things work before heaping mindless liberal dronebot criticisms on them.




Yea, whatever lets you sleep at night in you moral-superiority delusions of grandeur.

It has become readily apparent to anyone that you are completely head-up-the-donkey's-ass partisan. "OH! OH! Democrat GOOD! Republican BAD!. Please, mommy government, won't you tuck me in tonight?"

 

[apple0154]

If it's so great, then how come those in the Congress and Senate don't surrender their current coverage and sign on to what they're promoting to the people??

Probably because it's better than what the public is offered. No different than anyone working in a country that has universal medical. The employer offers additional coverage such as a private room, wheel chair rental, prescription drugs, etc.

I remember when I was hospitalized and they wanted me to take a private room as I had additional coverage through my employer. I declined. One nurse became a bit snippy about it and explained the hospital would receive more money if I took the private room.

With a grim expression I looked her in the eye and said, "I like being in a room with other people. A private room will remind me of a prison cell!"

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's sayeth not saith, forsooth Dumbo has pretensions to be a Shakespearean actor.

It had the affect of making sure you were actually reading posts; instead of just reacting to posters, like is usual for you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Probably because it's better than what the public is offered. No different than anyone working in a country that has universal medical. The employer offers additional coverage such as a private room, wheel chair rental, prescription drugs, etc.

I remember when I was hospitalized and they wanted me to take a private room as I had additional coverage through my employer. I declined. One nurse became a bit snippy about it and explained the hospital would receive more money if I took the private room.

With a grim expression I looked her in the eye and said, "I like being in a room with other people. A private room will remind me of a prison cell!"

Then you should be getting others involved and making sure that this little tidbit of "...it's better than what the public is offered..." becomes a bigger topic.

I mean; if it's good enouigh for the voters, then shouldn't it be good enough for those we vote for??

 

[Damocles]

Would you be saying the same thing if Congress didn't authorize military force if the President was certain the country would be attacked? Would you accept the President saying, "Oh well. I tried." and let the attack occur or would you expect him to do all he could to inform the people?

The worst part of it is if government had power over the people holding the purse strings this wouldn't have happened, yet, people fight tooth and nail when Obama tries to get government control of anything.

We see that with medical. It's going to become more difficult for people to get adequate medical coverage due to high unemployment and many having lost their homes and struggling financially. Increased medical coverage is not going to happen unless the government does step in but people fight against that.

I'm beginning to think it has less to do with objection to government control than it does to do with helping others. It's easy to get the impression some don't care.

"Let the poor scramble for medical insurance." "Let the companies go bankrupt."

"The government can't be trusted." "The government will mess things up." Nothing but a smoke screen to hide the real reason and the reason is some people don't want the government to help others. It's nothing but greed and selfishness raising it's head.

This is all nonsense to my point. The people responsible for the purse strings are the ones responsible for their actions, not the people in a different branch for which you want to give responsibility. 4 years they had control over those strings while Bush was in office, yet you want to give them a pass.

 

[Good Luck]

Moral superiority? Is that what you call it when people believe those in need should receive help?

No. But I do call the attitude that you must use government to force people into helping others the DELUSION of moral superiority.

There are very few people who do not believe that those in need should receive help. The problem arise from those who are convinced the only way to provide the help needed is through government force. That view, coupled with the lie that anyone who does not want to assist others through the use of force by liberal big government are selfish, uncompassionate, and a whole host of other lying adjectives used to assume a stance of false moral superiority, is what results in the delusion of moral superiority. When it comes to helping others, you hide behind government force to do the job for you. Why is that? Do you not want to do it yourself? Is it YOU who needs to be forced, so you project that aspect on others? Or are you just too lazy to do the job yourself? Or is it you are too elitist to want to actually deal with a needy person? Are they too dirty for you? Does their breath stink?

See, two can play the moral superiority game. But which one is the more accurate?

Conservatives, for all your projections, innuendo, and outright lies, want to actually help those in need. This is supported by the fact that every year those traditionally described as conservative give more to private assistance voluntarily than do liberals. I guess liberals think giving through government is enough. But conservative still give, despite being robbed by government first.

Conservatives as a whole do want to help, but not depend on government to do it for them. Unlike liberals who want to force others to do the helping for them, conservatives prefer to do it themselves through direct donations not only of money, but time and experience, so the act of helping others is not so expensive as to eat up limited resources.

Conservative want to give people a hand up to stand on their own feet, eventually able to pass that assistance on to others in need, not force those in need into a system of government sponsored programs designed to keep them in a dependent status for as long as possible.

Conservatives want to help those in NEED, without paying the salaries of a dozen or more overpaid leeching government bureaucrats in the process.

Just because conservative do not think government programs are the best, or even a desirable method of providing help in no way means they are not willing to voluntarily assist others. But if you need to make yourself feel better under the egocentric delusion of moral superiority that people must be forced to help in the manner you believe in instead of the manner they believe in, have at it. Heaven forbid someone should take your delusions away from you.

 

[apple0154]

Then you should be getting others involved and making sure that this little tidbit of "...it's better than what the public is offered..." becomes a bigger topic.

I mean; if it's good enouigh for the voters, then shouldn't it be good enough for those we vote for??

What part of "employer benefit" are you having difficulty with?

You see, here's the problem. Some folks feel if government medical doesn't offer a private room then it's not good enough for them when the purpose of medical care is to treat the individual and not replace a hotel room.

Once again, the nonsense of "government control" has been shown to be just that, nonsense. It has little to do with choices and a lot to do with not wanting to help others.

Greed and selfishness. That's what drives the opposition to government medical.

 

[Good Luck]

What part of "employer benefit" are you having difficulty with?

You see, here's the problem. Some folks feel if government medical doesn't offer a private room then it's not good enough for them when the purpose of medical care is to treat the individual and not replace a hotel room.

Once again, the nonsense of "government control" has been shown to be just that, nonsense. It has little to do with choices and a lot to do with not wanting to help others.

Greed and selfishness. That's what drives the opposition to government medical.

Un fraking believable. You are actually DEFENDING the idea that those who govern us are entitled to health care above that which they are willing to provide the people. How about you go into more detail about this "employer benefit" idea? How is it EXACTLY acceptable for the government to tell the people "This is good enough for you, but we'll keep our own plan, thank you."

If private rooms are an unnecessary luxury (which I do not disagree with in principle) why are they not also an unnecessary luxury for the government?

As for the comments on government control, when the government FORCES someone to purchase something they do not want voluntarily, that is CONTROLLING that decision for the individual. When the government has it in their plans to decide which private health policies one can choose from when switching providers, that is CONTROL. When the government tells you under which circumstances you even CAN switch providers, that is CONTROL.

The LIE is those who claim government is NOT going to take control of health care insurance. What else do you call it when you are forced by law to buy something, told what you can and cannot buy in the way of coverage, and told when and if you can choose a different provider - as long as it is from the already controlled list of providers? If it is not government control, what the hell kind of lying label do you want to put on it.

And, of course, you must follow with your delusion of moral superiority lie. How pathetically low the partisan democrat has sunk.

 

[cawacko]

Un fraking believable. You are actually DEFENDING the idea that those who govern us are entitled to health care above that which they are willing to provide the people. How about you go into more detail about this "employer benefit" idea? How is it EXACTLY acceptable for the government to tell the people "This is good enough for you, but we'll keep our own plan, thank you."

If private rooms are an unnecessary luxury (which I do not disagree with in principle) why are they not also an unnecessary luxury for the government?

As for the comments on government control, when the government FORCES someone to purchase something they do not want voluntarily, that is CONTROLLING that decision for the individual. When the government has it in their plans to decide which private health policies one can choose from when switching providers, that is CONTROL. When the government tells you under which circumstances you even CAN switch providers, that is CONTROL.

The LIE is those who claim government is NOT going to take control of health care insurance. What else do you call it when you are forced by law to buy something, told what you can and cannot buy in the way of coverage, and told when and if you can choose a different provider - as long as it is from the already controlled list of providers? If it is not government control, what the hell kind of lying label do you want to put on it.

And, of course, you must follow with your delusion of moral superiority lie. How pathetically low the partisan democrat has sunk.

Ah yes when all else fails resort to the more government = more 'caring' and 'compassion' argument. I'm sure it makes him feel good about himself making that argument.

 

[Cypress]

Un fraking believable. You are actually DEFENDING the idea that those who govern us are entitled to health care above that which they are willing to provide the people. How about you go into more detail about this "employer benefit" idea? How is it EXACTLY acceptable for the government to tell the people "This is good enough for you, but we'll keep our own plan, thank you."

If private rooms are an unnecessary luxury (which I do not disagree with in principle) why are they not also an unnecessary luxury for the government?

As for the comments on government control, when the government FORCES someone to purchase something they do not want voluntarily, that is CONTROLLING that decision for the individual. When the government has it in their plans to decide which private health policies one can choose from when switching providers, that is CONTROL. When the government tells you under which circumstances you even CAN switch providers, that is CONTROL.

The LIE is those who claim government is NOT going to take control of health care insurance. What else do you call it when you are forced by law to buy something, told what you can and cannot buy in the way of coverage, and told when and if you can choose a different provider - as long as it is from the already controlled list of providers? If it is not government control, what the hell kind of lying label do you want to put on it.

And, of course, you must follow with your delusion of moral superiority lie. How pathetically low the partisan democrat has sunk.

I don't know about apple, but I'm totally on board with your position of making the government-financed, and taxpayer funded Federal Employees Health Benefits program that Senators use, or the government-financed TRICARE that Generals and career military use, to all americans.

Will wonders never cease. A moment of agreement between you and I on expanding public, taxpayer funded health insurance to all americans.

 

[Good Luck]

I don't know about apple, but I'm totally on board with your position of making the government-financed, and taxpayer funded Federal Employees Health Benefits program that Senators use, or the government-financed TRICARE that Generals and career military use, to all americans.

Will wonders never cease. A moment of agreement between you and I on expanding public, taxpayer funded health insurance to all americans.

Not quite what I said. While it sounds nice, the price is quite impractical no matter how much you tax the people. I am more on board with reducing the coverage of those who govern us to match what they are willing to force on the people.

Which is also the point being made here: if what they are designing is good enough for the people, why is it NOT good enough for them?

 

[Cypress]

Not quite what I said. While it sounds nice, the price is quite impractical no matter how much you tax the people.

You can say this until you're blue in the fact, it still doesn't make your assertion truthful. Public health insurance is cheaper that private insurance. These are basic facts, easily verified. Every developed country on the planet provides decent, universal healthcare for all it's citizens, at a fraction of the per capita cost we pay. I really think this issue is emotional for you, and facts, cost effectiveness, and equity are in fact not even on your radar.

I am more on board with reducing the coverage of those who govern us to match what they are willing to force on the people.

this is not a healthcare policy. It's an emotional response, that has nothing to do with a viable national healthcare policy. Do rightwingers have any real solutions or not? Can you cite one single example of one single solitary country in the world that has a healthcare system based at its core on charity and private insurance? Fuck theory, and coffee house ideology. Give me some real world examples, demonstrating how it works.

 

[apple0154]

Un fraking believable. You are actually DEFENDING the idea that those who govern us are entitled to health care above that which they are willing to provide the people. How about you go into more detail about this "employer benefit" idea? How is it EXACTLY acceptable for the government to tell the people "This is good enough for you, but we'll keep our own plan, thank you.".

Sure, I'll explain this "employer benefit" idea.

Some large companies offer extended health plans and dental plans and life insurance plans and pension plans but the government only offers a pension plan (SS), as of now. Why is offering a medical plan so outrageous? Wouldn't it be great if the government offered dental plans and life insurance plans, as well?

 

[apple0154]

Un fraking believable. You are actually DEFENDING the idea that those who govern us are entitled to health care above that which they are willing to provide the people. How about you go into more detail about this "employer benefit" idea? How is it EXACTLY acceptable for the government to tell the people "This is good enough for you, but we'll keep our own plan, thank you."

If private rooms are an unnecessary luxury (which I do not disagree with in principle) why are they not also an unnecessary luxury for the government?

As for the comments on government control, when the government FORCES someone to purchase something they do not want voluntarily, that is CONTROLLING that decision for the individual. When the government has it in their plans to decide which private health policies one can choose from when switching providers, that is CONTROL. When the government tells you under which circumstances you even CAN switch providers, that is CONTROL.

The LIE is those who claim government is NOT going to take control of health care insurance. What else do you call it when you are forced by law to buy something, told what you can and cannot buy in the way of coverage, and told when and if you can choose a different provider - as long as it is from the already controlled list of providers? If it is not government control, what the hell kind of lying label do you want to put on it.

And, of course, you must follow with your delusion of moral superiority lie. How pathetically low the partisan democrat has sunk.

To continue with your post why don't you suggest a way people can be covered without the government having to implement choices? Let things continue on as they are now with people choosing their own insurance companies and coverage but if their neighbor contracts an illness the community levies a tax in order to pay their hospital bill? Would that be preferable?

You have your freedom to choose and your neighbor has coverage. Is that what you suggest?

What do you suggest? Do you have any suggestions other than just not helping people?

I'm listening.