Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564357]When we can provide health benefits to 100% of our citizens for a fraction of our defense spending, yeah, I say do it. It's not ridiculous, it's enlightened. To that end, i'll leave this discussion with a quote.

“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic” Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/quote]

Ahh, we should do it because it's enlightened. :laughing2 We'll I can't claim to be so. Where I come from when you take money from a man's salary and give it to another it's called theft.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;564328]Surely you know how to break up your paragraph and not use the same word over and over again. I mean that's just stupid. he he he![/quote]

I know this but when you're conversing with stupid people you have to keep things simple. Baby steps...1...2...3.

[quote=Trample the Elderly;564328]Are you getting married? I saw that you started a thread but that's not my thing. I thought liberals were against that sort of thing? Hopefully you'll not reproduce. Better yet, I hope you have a whole litter of mad dog conservatives. [/quote]

I am getting married because lord knows someone has to practice heterosis with the likes of you roaming the planet. Fortunately (unfortunate for you I am sure) chances are very good that my children won't turn out to be conservative. I mean, come on, you and your ilk make perfect specimens in helping me teach them the handicaps associated with conservatism.

[quote=Trample the Elderly;564328]As long as we are giving opinions of each other. I don't think you're very bright either. When you wish death on someone like you did Limbaugh, you're effing with Karma. So have a nice day dingus![/quote]

You do some thinking? Get out of here!!! You ain't fooling no one dog, you've been running on an empty tank from day one. As for your Rushbo comment, I don't tolerate the intolerant. He is the cause and I am the effect.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564361]I know this but when you're conversing with stupid people you have to keep things simple. Baby steps...1...2...3.
I am getting married because lord knows someone has to practice heterosis with the likes of you roaming the planet. Fortunately (unfortunate for you I am sure) chances are very good that my children won't turn out to be conservative. I mean, come on, you and your ilk make perfect specimens in helping me teach them the handicaps associated with conservatism.
You do some thinking? Get out of here!!! You ain't fooling no one dog, you've been running on an empty tank from day one. As for your Rushbo comment, I don't tolerate the intolerant. He is the cause and I am the effect.[/quote]

I'm not one of your yo-boys back on the block, dog. You can try to talk down to me if you want but you're not as smart as you think you are.

Re: Obama Care
 

Sorry guys, but Trample versus Saden = lamest internet beef of all time imo. Don't get me wrong, I love a good flame war, but neither of you guys scored a single shot that made me laugh. Why don't you call a truce?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;564330]At whose cost?

Where did the idea get started that everyone has a 'right' to the services of another human being?[/quote]
Stop asking silly philisophical questions. Just consider the source and agree that it is a "right" to "quality" health care. Now pay up buddy. We need more of your money to fund someone else's "rights".

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;564368]Stop asking silly philisophical questions. Just consider the source and agree that it is a "right" to "quality" health care. Now pay up buddy. We need more of your money to fund someone else's "rights".[/quote]

If the answer is readily available it's not much of a philosophical question.

[quote]A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.

-Archbishop Desmond Tutu[/quote]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=djnemo65;564367]Sorry guys, but Trample versus Saden = lamest internet beef of all time imo. Don't get me wrong, I love a good flame war, but neither of you guys scored a single shot that made me laugh. Why don't you call a truce?[/quote]

Sorry to disappoint you...it's not much of a war really.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564357]When we can provide health benefits to 100% of our citizens for a fraction of our defense spending, yeah, I say do it. It's not ridiculous, it's enlightened. To that end, i'll leave this discussion with a quote.

“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic” Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/quote]

You can check my posts, I am well on record that our Defense spending is outta control, but its not getting cut anytime soon. And I would love to see proof that we can give 100% coverage for 100% of health issues for a fraction of the current defense spending. You can't, the costs skyrocket faster than the space shuttle, and if you try eventually you end up limiting what can be done - in other words denying some level of healthcare to someone.

As for your quote, it seems to more appropriately apply to those who see government as a solution when the government has repeatedly proven itself inept at any type of reasonable fiscal constraint.

Re: Obama Care
 

and even without cutting the military, did we really need to spend 550 million on this?

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_sc/us_sci_underground_science]Work begins on world's deepest underground lab - Yahoo! News[/url]

cool - maybe
necessary - not

Footnote- the article does not specify the source of the funds, but say "scientists, [B]politicians[/B], and others" were on hand for the opening. Seriously, who else would pay to find "ghostly particles"

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564372]If the answer is readily available it's not much of a philosophical question.[/quote]


[quote]A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed.

-Archbishop Desmond Tutu[/quote]

When the response, such as this one from Desmond Tutu, is complete and utter bullshit, it's not much of a philisophical answer.

I'm sure the nation's doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals will snap-to and offer themselves up as slaves after reading this crap from Tutu.

Re: Obama Care
 

Now, this is a excerpt from a recent [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061902334.html"]George Will[/URL] column. Dismiss it if you like, but just consider the facts about this figure we hear so much about: the 45 million uninsured -- the people for whom we have to create a massive new government program.

[quote]Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health-care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a "snapshot" of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.

Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states -- Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent -- 9.7 million -- of the uninsured are not citizens. As many as 14 million are eligible for existing government programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, etc. -- but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.

Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money -- (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect. Which is why the simple idea of the dependency agenda cuts like a razor through the complexities of this debate.[/quote]

This is something I've never heard addressed by those who favor a public option -- if you're so concerned about the cost of healthcare for those who cannot afford it, why not make the cost tax deductable just like it is for employers?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564372]If the answer is readily available it's not much of a philosophical question.[/quote]

That's an "answer"?

Re: Obama Care
 

This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"]hierarchy of needs[/URL] does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564392][B]This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it.[/B]
...
To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"]hierarchy of needs[/URL] does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.[/quote]

Interesting way to frame the question. So healthcare is a right - but only when a nation has "the means to provide it". Does that mean that a nation with TRILLION DOLLAR Debt somehow has the means to afford it? At what level does it cease being a right? My understanding of rights is that they existed above a governmental level. Hence why Human Rights can trump governmental dictatorships and led to phrases like "inalienable" and "God-given"(Saden just insert naturally occuring for that one, no sense in re-hashing the "God" issue). Either Universal healthcare is a Right and a government should cover it regardless of having the means, or, it is an individual responsibility. I believe it is an individual responsibility.

in terms of the hierarchy of needs, you conveniently switch from an individual perspective to a governmental responsibility to a social structure. Our federal government is duly charged with protecting our borders, which requires a defense outlay. It is charged with providing a level of safety to ensure commerce and provide the populace with a general safety. To go any further than that is really a slippery slope. For example, I have no desire for the government to provide for my sex life, yet that is listed as a base need in your link.

Bottomline for me, just because something is important, does not mean it is a right, or something that the government is obliged to involve itself in.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564392]This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"]hierarchy of needs[/URL] does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.[/quote]

Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;564409]Interesting way to frame the question. So healthcare is a right - but only when a nation has "the means to provide it". Does that mean that a nation with TRILLION DOLLAR Debt somehow has the means to afford it? At what level does it cease being a right? My understanding of rights is that they existed above a governmental level. Hence why Human Rights can trump governmental dictatorships and led to phrases like "inalienable" and "God-given"(Saden just insert naturally occuring for that one, no sense in re-hashing the "God" issue). Either Universal healthcare is a Right and a government should cover it regardless of having the means, or, it is an individual responsibility. I believe it is an individual responsibility.

in terms of the hierarchy of needs, you conveniently switch from an individual perspective to a governmental responsibility to a social structure. Our federal government is duly charged with protecting our borders, which requires a defense outlay. It is charged with providing a level of safety to ensure commerce and provide the populace with a general safety. To go any further than that is really a slippery slope. For example, I have no desire for the government to provide for my sex life, yet that is listed as a base need in your link.

Bottomline for me, just because something is important, does not mean it is a right, or something that the government is obliged to involve itself in.[/quote]

I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;564391]That's an "answer"?[/quote]

No, that's philosophy. If you want the answer go get it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;564386]When the response, such as this one from Desmond Tutu, is complete and utter bullshit, it's not much of a philisophical answer.

I'm sure the nation's doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals will snap-to and offer themselves up as slaves after reading this crap from Tutu.[/quote]

See my response above. Why ask a question when all it takes is a little research to arrive at the answer?

Ubuntu is not bulshit but a way of life. It is a philosophical answer if you understand it. You clearly don't understand it or have it. You are Ubuntuless!

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;564418]Alright, I'll play along. I don't think that any of the needs on Maslow's chart has anything to do with the role of the Federal Government. IMO the government has a very limited role. So when you say "as compared to other things they spend money on", then I'd be happy to cut a majority of those things.

There are a dozen ways to cut spending in the military without limiting it. Stop outsourcing it to outside contractors. When I was in we cooked our own food, pumped our own fuel, provided our own security details, etc. A lot of those things are done by contractors now. You can also stop enlisting women, cut down on the myriad of uniforms and non-essential equipment, and lower the education requirments for the Army.

I'd also be cool with rolling up all of the spy agencies into two arms, the FBI and the CIA. One for domestic and the other for foreign investigation. Seeing how many secrets the Chinese have stolen, I don't see what good all of these agencies are doing.

Back to your orginal arguement. You seem to have a totally different opinion on what the role of the government is than I do. You want a Democracy with Socialist aspects and I want a Republic with Democratic principles. Don't get all upset either. When a government controls industry, and has its hand in every other aspect of your life that's socialism.

Just because we have the money to do something, doesn't mean it should be done. Please tell me where all of that money is. If we cut spending we also need to start paying back debt too.

The government has in the past checked people coming into this country for disease. That's a role they are obligated to serve. They don't check illegals because they chose not to stop them. That's playing politics with a nation's health. The Fed also puts on commercials about AIDS and smoking, both being for the most part people's stupid choices. When it comes to the real role of government the politicians just play politics with other people's lives and money (livelihood). Why do you trust those worms?[/quote]

Regarding Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, i was referring to it in a very broad sense related to basic needs that everyone has and the associated responsibility (in my view) of a government to provide for as many of those needs as possible within reason. Regarding your stance on illegal immigration and the "disease" they bring with them, remember that there are millions of tourists who come to this country every year without being scanned for illness excepting special circumstances.

I'm not sure how you can realistically state that public education regarding real threats (i.e. aids, smoking) vs. largely exaggerated threats (terror level is orange, no red, ok blue) is a bad thing.

Lastly, i'm not getting "all upset" as there's been nothing here to be upset about. It's a discussion, one which we differ on but I enjoy the conversation. It'd be boring otherwise. And you're right, i have no problem with some aspects of socialism. I've said it previously, a good idea is a good idea, regardless of where/whom it comes from.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564392]This whole argument comes down to whether or not you see basic, quality healthcare (which I will loosely define as preventative, proven treatments and necessary procedures) as a right, given that the nation those citizens belong to has the means to provide it. I'm not talking about breast enhancement, though I think we can all agree it would be money well spent. I'm not aware (maybe I'm just not that lucky) of any private plans, be they HMO or whatever, that fund such elective procedures anyway. If that is indeed the case, there's still a private market for those therapies/procedures, you just have to pay, as you currently do.

To those who think healthcare should be a private matter, responsibility lying solely with the individual, let me ask you an honest question:

Where on YOUR [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"]hierarchy of needs[/URL] does healthcare fall? Above or below education? Above or below Defense? Frame it within those items that we spend federal dollars on.[/quote]
Even if health care is a right why do we need to tear apart our current system to fix the problem for a small % that are uninsured? I'm self employeed and have to pay for my families health which is not cheap but thats what I have to provide as a husband and father for my family. I think we all agree that health ins. needs some reform I'm just do not feel the goverment is the solution. The programs they are currently running are a mess and I just see the cost going up not down if the goverment gets any more involved. Mandates by the goverment now make it tougher for people to obtain ins. in the private market today so they are adding to the problem.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564424]I think a society that can ensure that it's citizens are provided for heathwise, must. For me, it goes back to how you define your level of civilization. What makes one country "third world" while another is first? A large component of the answer to that question is the quality of life of its citizenry. There is no more important issue than health, and there is absolutely no good reason that a society as advanced as ours should have a segment of the population without access to healthcare. In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.[/quote]

so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564426]See my response above. Why ask a question when all it takes is a little research to arrive at the answer?[/quote]

I love it when saden baits.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;564433]I love it when saden baits.[/quote]


It is easy to trap the inexpert.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564424]... In my opinion, any other view is callous and shortsighted.[/quote]

Short-sighted, in my opinion, is asking a government who:

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by your numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564357]When we can provide health benefits to 100% of our citizens for a fraction of our defense spending, yeah, I say do it. It's not ridiculous, it's enlightened. To that end, i'll leave this discussion with a quote.

“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic” Fyodor Dostoyevsky[/quote]
What do you mean by a fraction of our defense spending? If I'm correct we are already spending more on health coverages then defense and it sure will not be a fraction.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget"]United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;564172]Your love for Obama only makes you blind to the stupid crap he does every day.[/quote]

Sorry if I sound like I love the guy...............I can't help it! Its just great to here my President speak English AND use complete sentences while doing it! I'm sorry if I get a little excited over that, but it is about time you know...

I mean, its weird man. This guy can actually look you in the eye and answer your question. He can actually speak to you in a way that you can understand what he's talking about. He won't say..........I wish you wrote that question down beforehand so I would know how to respond..............He will, GET THIS! actually answer it! I love that! I just can't help it! I love it!

I'm sorry..................you were talking about someone being stupid? Whose Stupid?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;564431][B]so right now we are closer to 3rd world because we have private healthcare that provides above average healthcare to atleast 70% of the population, and emergency care to anyone who walks into an emergency room. In 1950s and 60s we were 3rd world?? [/B]what you speak of is madness sir. it is a failed philosophy that government can provide all. the backbone of america was in fact individuals holding their own responsibility for their needs, and the government providing an environment that allowed them to pursue it however they saw fit. as Trample said before, if you want to give your checks to the government fine, I prefer to give mine to charities and those in my area and my life who are needy. if we do that, those who are truly needy will certainly be cared for, even if they are reported as uncovered for the government's purposes.[/quote]

I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564445]I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?[/quote]
Well maybe we sould look at the current stuff that the goverment is doing wrong and fix them first before it tries to take on anything else. I'd take goverment run health Care if I could opt. out of SS and have back 1/2 of the money they have allready taken from me.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;564447]Well maybe we sould look at the current stuff that the goverment is doing wrong and fix them first before it tries to take on anything else. I'd take goverment run health Care if I could opt. out of SS and have back 1/2 of the money they have allready taken from me.[/quote]

See, that I'm ok with.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564450]See, that I'm ok with.[/quote]
Problem is they don't have that money to give back to start with. They stole the money from SS and if any investor did anything close to that they would be in jail. See SS sould have been very easy for the goverment to run. You take in the money but it in a safe place then pay it back when the person retires. They even had the advantage if the person died with no family they goverment got to keep the money unlike a private investment companies. Now people want me to have the confidence in them to run Health Care which is 100% more complicated then saving for retirement.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;564453]Problem is they don't have that money to give back to start with. They stole the money from SS and [B]if any investor did anything close to that they would be in jail[/B]. See SS sould have been very easy for the goverment to run. You take in the money but it in a safe place then pay it back when the person retires. They even had the advantage if the person died with no family they goverment got to keep the money unlike a private investment companies. Now people want me to have the confidence in them to run Health Care which is 100% more complicated then saving for retirement.[/quote]


LOOOOL....they did, and many of them aren't going to go to jail.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Miller101;564443]Sorry if I sound like I love the guy...............I can't help it! Its just great to here my President speak English AND use complete sentences while doing it! I'm sorry if I get a little excited over that, but it is about time you know...

I mean, its weird man. [B]This guy can actually look you in the eye and answer your question. He can actually speak to you in a way that you can understand what he's talking about. He won't say..........I wish you wrote that question down beforehand so I would know how to respond..............He will, GET THIS! actually answer it! I love that! I just can't help it! I love it![/B]

I'm sorry..................you were talking about someone being stupid? Whose Stupid?[/quote]

Are you joking?? Did you see the press conference yesterday? The media coddles him like nothing I've ever seen before, and when he was asked real questions, he ducked and dodged like a pro.

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/24/obama-dominates-news-media-with-full-court-press/]CURL: Obama dominates news media with full-court press - Washington Times[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564456]LOOOOL....they did, and many of them aren't going to go to jail.[/quote]
Which investors stole money that are not getting prosecuted?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564445]...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?[/quote]

pursuit of happiness - for me, that means someone has a right to seek out happiness, thus limiting a government's right to interfere in your life; it does not mean that you have a right to medical care, simply that in the condition you are, no governmental rules or structures should infringe upon your abilities to your life's pursuits (obviously the most limited since your pursuits can't degrade another person's equally valid pursuit etc.)

life - health is intrinsic to this, but saying your health is a "right" is not the same as saying the government would give you healthcare... more so it means that others can't kill you or deprive you of health maliciously and get away with it

liberty - n/a for this discussion

again, being a part of a right does not immediately make it a government obligation to provide it. If the government ruled tomorrow that all Redskin fans are banned from using any doctor or seek out any medical treatments, that would be denying an inalienable right.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;564458]Which investors stole money that are not getting prosecuted?[/quote]

The guys that manage the mutual funds that I owe.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;564457]Are you joking?? Did you see the press conference yesterday? The media coddles him like nothing I've ever seen before, and when he was asked real questions, he ducked and dodged like a pro.

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/24/obama-dominates-news-media-with-full-court-press/]CURL: Obama dominates news media with full-court press - Washington Times[/url][/quote]

Can you blame the media? Can you blame them? I mean, they're the ones that actually have to ask the questions! :doh: And here the responses :confused: Forgive them if they're happy to FINALLY have a President that can speak in complete sentences! A president that can answer their questions. A president that won't throw them out of the room for asking the "wrong question". Its just.........Its weird man! I mean, remember the last Supreme Court nominee? The lottery chick? Can you imagine being in the media and having to go through that? Having to ask the questions? Particulary, why he appointed a Lottery chick? Just think about it from their perspective for a minute...............And give them a break man. Give us a break! We're still getting used to it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564460]The guys that manage the mutual funds that I owe.[/quote]
They took your money and stole it from your account and never invested it in your funds.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;564445]I know you didn't actually take anything i said to mean that we were closer to the 3rd world than first. My take is that to stay a first world going forward, we need to look at the areas we are currently lacking in. To me, that is healthcare, pure and simple. I don't think the gov't needs to be involved in all aspects of life, but this is one with which I have no issue.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is health not intrinsic to two thirds of that statement?[/quote]

also fascinating is that the Declaration of [B]Independence[/B] was a treatise declaring freedom from oppressive government behavior. That your partial quote was actually used to say government should stay the heck away from these things. And now you use it to beg big brother to please please put people back under its thumb.

The founders wrote that to break from government and let men rise and fall on their own merits.

We certainly have come a long way my good people.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;564434]It is easy to trap the inexpert.[/quote]

Insinuating that you are the expert right?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;564466]also fascinating is that the Declaration of [B]Independence[/B] was a treatise declaring freedom from oppressive government behavior. That your partial quote was actually used to say government should stay the heck away from these things. And now you use it to beg big brother to please please put people back under its thumb.

The founders wrote that to break from government and let men rise and fall on their own merits.

We certainly have come a long way my good people.[/quote]

I don't see that a gov't option as being "oppressed." Let's not get crazy here, no one is inviting Queen Elizabeth over the pond. Specifically regarding taxation without representation, no one is doing anything with that. IF our elected officials pass some form of this plan, then it's the will of the people, maybe not all of the people, but the majority. It's not something being forced upon the taxpayers by the divine will of Lord Obama.