Why Does The US Right Distrust Representative Government?

[cancel2 2022]

Ok, Evgeny I'll start typing like this. BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY OWN GOVERMENT I THINK THAT A ACTION NEEDS TO BE APPLIED TO A GOVERNMENT THAT IS BECOMING INCREASINLY HOSTILE.

I can't see how using upper case helps, can you?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Ok, Evgeny I'll start typing like this. BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF MY OWN GOVERMENT I THINK THAT A ACTION NEEDS TO BE APPLIED TO A GOVERNMENT THAT IS BECOMING INCREASINLY HOSTILE.

What does Evgeny mean?

 

[a11n]

It was the name of a person I knew that used to pester me a lot like you do until I moved

 

[cancel2 2022]

It was the name of a person I knew that used to pester me a lot like you do until I moved

Well sorry for that, obviously I should have known the inner recesses of your mind. What was I thinking?

 

[wanderingbear]

I thought it was the far left that feared government. Not the far right.

 

[cawacko]

He's trying to make a better place for everyone and what better way to start than by ensuring everyone has access to medical care?

Hey congrats apple you found a troll who you can share your love of government with.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As adjustments are made to the plan the taxes will come down. That's a fact because it's been proven in every country that has "government medical". The cost per capita is half of what the US spends.

Also, other unnecessary spending will be cut and channeled into medical.

Taxes can't come down, how will the more expensive system cost less? What has been proven in every country with socialized medicine is, it doesn't work. The cost per capita is half because they have half the quality, half the accessibility, and half the liability. You just keep droning on with propaganda talking points, like you are still trying to "sell" yourself on the idea. In case after case, these European/Canadian examples you cite, are failing! They are not providing better medical care, they are not saving money, they are not doing any of the things promised, and most are now having to re-introduce capitalist measures back into the systems, to save them.

Unnecessary spending? Like making the monthly payment on the Social Security retirement fund? Yeah, it's going to be completely tapped soon, so why bother with that? Might as well channel it into socialized medicine! Or maybe it's the unnecessary spending on research? We don't really need to be advancing technology or creating new life-saving medicine, we're good there, right?

Let's understand something, since you seem to be completely clueless as usual, this bill which has been signed into law now, will effectively open the door... no, 'kick down the door'... to completely free health care treatment for every hypochondriac, con artist, hooker, crack/meth head, junkie and pill head in the country, at our expense! And you imagine this won't actually cost us more money? You don't think hospitals will shortly become homeless shelters? Why do you think nearly half of the doctors say they will leave the practice, if this thing becomes law? They see what's coming, just as the people of Massachusetts saw it, and elected Scott Brown to stop it.

Medicare and Medicaid are broke, they haven't worked, they are insufficient to do what they were intended to do, and they are costly. The VA Hospital, governmental medical health care provided for the best of our best, our heroes in battle and defense of America.. broke, doesn't work, service is sub-par and crappy! ADC and WIC... ever been to a DFACS office? Ever sat in that waiting room and waited for some government bureaucrat to tell you what you do and don't 'qualify' for, and what hoop you need to jump through for them?

No sir, you've turned it all over to these people now, and you will never get it back again. You can "dream" all you like, and for now, you can post and pontificate about the "greatness" of this thing, but you will eventually have to face reality of what you did. It will not bring cost down, because it didn't address the things which drive costs. It simply shifted the responsibility for it all to the government, and there is no way this could ever cost us less.

 

[apple0154]

Hey congrats apple you found a troll who can share your love of government with.

It's not my love of government. It's my love of decent health care. If the private sector could have/would have provided it this entire discussion would be moot.

As the population ages medical care will become more of a demand. We all know what demand does to prices. People line up for opportunities like this. It's no different than the scum bags ripping off people during the New Orleans tragedy.

Maybe some people feel profiting off others illnesses is kool but I find it reprehensible. The need for comprehensive health care was brought up a hundred years ago! When Medicare was implemented in the mid-sixties there were even people against helping the elderly. What transpired over the last 45+ years?

When I see people write about "ramming through" legislation I can't think of anything more absurd. The opponents didn't want comprehensive health care. Nothing would have pleased them.

Looks like the troll understands better than most people here.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I thought it was the far left that feared government. Not the far right.

the far left loves a benevolent totalitarian. they want huge government with big entitlements and lots of police protection.

 

[apple0154]

Taxes can't come down, how will the more expensive system cost less? What has been proven in every country with socialized medicine is, it doesn't work. The cost per capita is half because they have half the quality, half the accessibility, and half the liability. You just keep droning on with propaganda talking points, like you are still trying to "sell" yourself on the idea. In case after case, these European/Canadian examples you cite, are failing! They are not providing better medical care, they are not saving money, they are not doing any of the things promised, and most are now having to re-introduce capitalist measures back into the systems, to save them.

The European systems along with the Canadian system have been running for over 40 years. Some much longer. Not bad for something that doesn't work.

You keep saying the systems are half as efficient and I keep telling you those countries have a life span equal to or greater than the US. That is proof they are efficient and accessible. People live just as long or longer than in the US. What is it about that fact you don't understand?

Unnecessary spending? Like making the monthly payment on the Social Security retirement fund? Yeah, it's going to be completely tapped soon, so why bother with that? Might as well channel it into socialized medicine! Or maybe it's the unnecessary spending on research? We don't really need to be advancing technology or creating new life-saving medicine, we're good there, right?

Unnecessary spending like what Cheney said about the Iraq war. "It was an option and we could afford it." That type of unnecessary spending. Let's hope we never hear such craziness from a politician again.

Then there's Bush's tax cuts. No money for SS but let's give the folks a tax cut. Obviously if one runs a country like that there are going to be problems.

Let's understand something, since you seem to be completely clueless as usual, this bill which has been signed into law now, will effectively open the door... no, 'kick down the door'... to completely free health care treatment for every hypochondriac, con artist, hooker, crack/meth head, junkie and pill head in the country, at our expense! And you imagine this won't actually cost us more money? You don't think hospitals will shortly become homeless shelters? Why do you think nearly half of the doctors say they will leave the practice, if this thing becomes law? They see what's coming, just as the people of Massachusetts saw it, and elected Scott Brown to stop it.

The only thing that needs to be understood is dozens of countries have government health and have had it for over 40 years. Big and small, rich and poor, capitalist and socialist and communist....they all managed to implement a government health policy but you're saying the US can't do it? You're saying the US can't afford to look after it's ill citizens? You definitely have a low opinion of your country. Unless, of course, you're saying all the world's hypochondriacs and con artists and hookers and crack/meth heads and junkies and pill heads are all living in the US. I don't believe the Republican membership is that large!

Medicare and Medicaid are broke, they haven't worked, they are insufficient to do what they were intended to do, and they are costly. The VA Hospital, governmental medical health care provided for the best of our best, our heroes in battle and defense of America.. broke, doesn't work, service is sub-par and crappy! ADC and WIC... ever been to a DFACS office? Ever sat in that waiting room and waited for some government bureaucrat to tell you what you do and don't 'qualify' for, and what hoop you need to jump through for them?

For eight years there was a government that didn't believe in government. What does anyone expect would happen?

No sir, you've turned it all over to these people now, and you will never get it back again. You can "dream" all you like, and for now, you can post and pontificate about the "greatness" of this thing, but you will eventually have to face reality of what you did. It will not bring cost down, because it didn't address the things which drive costs. It simply shifted the responsibility for it all to the government, and there is no way this could ever cost us less.

I have to keep repeating an indisputable fact and that is dozens of countries have done it. Are the people in France and England and Australia and Germany and Canada and Finland and Italy and Portugal and Spain and Singapore and Israel and Iceland and Slovakia and.....all more efficient at running a government?

Why do you think the US is incapable of doing what all those other countries have done?

Not only have all those countries implemented health coverage but there is not one political party campaigning on eliminating that coverage. Why, Dixie? Why?

What more proof can be offered? 45+ years later and not one country has reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system and they all started out with that system. Not one political party campaigning on reverting to the the old system. Why, Dixie? Why?

 

[evince]

Why do the American right fear goverment so much?

Why are unaccountable, unelected corporate leaders better suited to guide and run a nation than elected, representative leaders?

Great to see you arround.

I also can not understand why they believe people who wear three piece suits and run companies are inherently more honest than the people who live next to them?

How I wish they would realize that when there are no rules and money to gain the people who will win are the ones who have no moral compass and will do ANYTHING to win and they will run right over the people who refrain from certain tactics due to moral compunction.

There is no "magic" market that takes care of the interests of human beings.

With the government at least you have some control over who runs it. When you have an unfettered market no one can fire the people at the top no matter how absent their concern for other human beings is.


I really wish you were arround here more often ,I miss your wisdom.

 

[evince]

Yes, that's the right's trick so they can say, "See, it doesn't work."

I'm sure that was the Repub plan regarding government services. Cut taxes and run up a deficit so there wouldn't be any money for services. I'm glad Obama went ahead anyway. Now the succeeding governments are obliged to find the money.

Raise taxes. Cut somewhere else. Do whatever it takes. That was Obama's great achievement. One giant step.

"Whither on the vine" comes to mind.

 

[evince]

Fear representative government ? We want representative government.

We obviously don't have it at the moment.....

When the majority of the populous says the DON'T WANT a particular action and your elected representative goes and votes FOR that particular action...that is directly the opposite of representative government

The representative is only representing himself, not his constituents...

Then why did our founders give us a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy?

When you have a representative government you elect someone to do what is best based on what you know of them and their platform.

They are not tasked to just do your bidding they are tasked to do what is best for the country.

Lets hope that at times theyu truely do whats best instead of what the polls of the momment say.

Lets remember LIES sometimes take a while to be spotted by the public.

After 911 70% of the public thought Sadam did 911.

When the public has been fed bad information and calls for a certain action based on those lies what should a representative do?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Oh, this new health care law is going to save us trillions? I think that's news to me and most others. And of course Obama doesn't want to spend this much money right? He doesn't want to raise taxes right? Poor Obama having to do everything against his will. Such a victim he is.

That's because you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and haven't taken the time to find out what the facts are. Do a little bit of research about the rest of the world. Learn how other wealthy industrial nations manage their health care, how they spend half the money we do (as a percentage of GDP) and achieve higher outcomes then we do. Maybe you'll find out why they spend far less then we do and achieve those higher outcomes or are you one of those arrogant nationalist who believe we have nothing to learn from the outside word and that we should build a wall around our borders and ignore the rest of the world?

If we fully implement health care reform to reflect what the rest of the modern world is doing then we can fully expect to reduce our health care expenditures to the levels that these nations do, approximately 8% of GDP. So do the math. We have a 16 trillion dollar economy. We spend 16% of that on health care (2.5 Trillion) annually. If we can cut that to 8% of GDP (about what most modern nations spend) then we can save 1.25 trillion dollars anually. Several years of those savings would pay off our national debt!

So by reducing health care expenditures to those levels we can save this nation over 1 trillion dollars a year and improve outcomes. That's no pipe dream either, those are cold hard facts. That's the reality. That's why those who oppose these reforms are insanely on the wrong side of history. It's just simply the math.

 

[christiefan915]

Britian is a ethnographical mess, you have no right to assualt american values tom. So what, we got a black president, i sure as hell didnt vote for him, But he;s here so. I dont like him but hes trying to destroy our world, he infact loathes everything to do with europe and people of european decent so i dont know why you support. infact i think hes a anti-semite as well.

"Anti-semite"? He's sure keeping it well-hidden at the Seders he's been hosting since the primaries.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That crap is getting old sonny...the only ones swallowing that shit is pinheads like you,... and that number is dropping faster that Obamas poll numbers....

No, it was you wing nut extremist who swallowed that shit and look at the fucking mess you got us into. Now you want to criticize those who would dig us out of the hole ya'll created? Fuck that, we dont' have time for you incompetent mother fuckers anymore. Don't you have a teabagging party to go to? The rest of us are to busy cleaining up your messes so it would be nice if you would just get your incompetent GED trailer park ass out of the way!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wow, I learned some time ago that wartime spending did NOT get the US out of the Depression (a myth which persists to the present day), but if Tom is correct, then all we have to do is bomb the shit out of Europe...

Say what? Yea....and Lincoln sold Alaska to Russia!

 

[cawacko]

That's because you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and haven't taken the time to find out what the facts are. Do a little bit of research about the rest of the world. Learn how other wealthy industrial nations manage their health care, how they spend half the money we do (as a percentage of GDP) and achieve higher outcomes then we do. Maybe you'll find out why they spend far less then we do and achieve those higher outcomes or are you one of those arrogant nationalist who believe we have nothing to learn from the outside word and that we should build a wall around our borders and ignore the rest of the world?

If we fully implement health care reform to reflect what the rest of the modern world is doing then we can fully expect to reduce our health care expenditures to the levels that these nations do, approximately 8% of GDP. So do the math. We have a 16 trillion dollar economy. We spend 16% of that on health care (2.5 Trillion) annually. If we can cut that to 8% of GDP (about what most modern nations spend) then we can save 1.25 trillion dollars anually. Several years of those savings would pay off our national debt!

So by reducing health care expenditures to those levels we can save this nation over 1 trillion dollars a year and improve outcomes. That's no pipe dream either, those are cold hard facts. That's the reality. That's why those who oppose these reforms are insanely on the wrong side of history. It's just simply the math.

Well considering that I a) don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or talk radio for that matter and b) don't watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC that weak attempt to discredit doesn't really work. An in an ode to Topspin it doesn't take a Phd or a BA or BS to understand that the CBO consistently underestimates the costs of big entitlements so we can count on the future trillion dollars of debt we can pretty much be guaranteed will be higher than that. That's real math. That's "hard facts". The only way we "save" anything is when the government starts rationing care to try and stay within its budget. And as they say in Oakland, 'that's real talk'.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well considering that I a) don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or talk radio for that matter and b) don't watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC that weak attempt to discredit doesn't really work. An in an ode to Topspin it doesn't take a Phd or a BA or BS to understand that the CBO consistently underestimates the costs of big entitlements so we can count on the future trillion dollars of debt we can pretty much be guaranteed will be higher than that. That's real math. That's "hard facts". The only way we "save" anything is when the government starts rationing care to try and stay within its budget. And as they say in Oakland, 'that's real talk'.

So I am correct in my assumptions that you just want to ignore how the rest of the inustrialized world does it? The fact that they spend half of what we do and achieve higher outcomes is not to be considered or emulated?

Get real. This present bill is just a start and you know it. The CBO's estimates are ultra conservative because it doesn't include the long term savings of supporting preventative programs, getting away from a specialist and truama driven health delivery system and returning to primary care physicians as the portal of entry into health care. Nor does it consider how eliminating redundant services and technology reduces cost, nor does it consider how we can now standardize medical records and make them portable at a huge reductions of administrative cost. Nor do people like you consider that this is just a beginning. That when you go this far a public option will become a necessity and that real price controls will be instituted.

You want to talk about getting real? well ok, get real about this. It's the present system we have that we cannot afford. It is the present system which if left in the hands of private insurance companies will cost our economy 3 trillion dollars a year by 2015 and make US companies less competitive in the global market place. It is the present system that is going to bankrupt us that we cannot afford and playing ostrich politics isn't cutting it.

We need real solutions and we need them now before this situation becomes catastrophic.

Or are you suggesting that Republicans apply their "Katrina" approach to reforming health care?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Then why did our founders give us a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy?

When you have a representative government you elect someone to do what is best based on what you know of them and their platform.

They are not tasked to just do your bidding they are tasked to do what is best for the country.

Lets hope that at times theyu truely do whats best instead of what the polls of the momment say.

Lets remember LIES sometimes take a while to be spotted by the public.

After 911 70% of the public thought Sadam did 911.

When the public has been fed bad information and calls for a certain action based on those lies what should a representative do?

The people are morons.