Obama Care

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You are absolutely correct, I do not want to find a way to allow government to intrude and control the most important part of my life. I have in the past posted my thoughts on government, very clearly I believe. I am for a minimal government, one which secures our freedoms through a strong air force/navy and a standby army. Our Defense spending is as unwise as would be universal health care. We need the people of the US to remember that our history was made not by Government providing for our needs, but by individuals and local citizens working through hardship and toiling to bring the prosperity we enjoy. Government should serve to safeguard the basic principles we all hold dear, freedom of the individual, justice that is blind when it comes to race, creed, wealth. I am not a defeatist because I believe that Government has a limited role and a limited place in determining what is and is not appropriate health care spending. I am not defeatist when I look at the history of the Government and know that there are those who want nothing more than the purse strings to control who has access to the premium healthcare and who is shunted through the mass system (if you argue this point, go ask any congressman/woman what their healthcare package consists of). I simply do not want Government to be involved. I think it is a bad idea at its base. and as for being lazy, those who think the government should provide services instead of individuals being required to put in whatever it takes to provide for themselves and their families, that is lazy. I bust my tail, and i know most of us on here do everyday, and i try my best to provide the healthcare that my family needs. Lets all do that, and not look to big brother to handle it for us.

I don't expect that you would agree with these points, but at least recognize that to want a true limited government is neither lazy nor defeatist, in fact if government is limited that is when the opportunity to work hard, and lift this country out of its current debt is the most possible.

I also want a limited/smaller government, as I have stated previously. I also have good health insurance. I also work hard. And, I don't have a position on government healthcare, as stated previously. Nevertheless, I can't see any value in always pointing out the costs/negatives without ever offering any positive ideas for making it work.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I also want a limited/smaller government, as I have stated previously. I also have good health insurance. I also work hard. And, I don't have a position on government healthcare, as stated previously. Nevertheless, I can't see any value in always pointing out the costs/negatives without ever offering any positive ideas for making it work.

I really don't understand your position then, are you saying that we should reduce the size of the Federal Government and at the same time offer some form of Universal Healthcare provided by that same Government?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I really don't understand your position then, are you saying that we should reduce the size of the Federal Government and at the same time offer some form of Universal Healthcare provided by that same Government?

As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.

[saden1]

For my friends on the right...enjoy...

You Tube

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.

Well maybe its because you only question the ones against Un. Health care and no one else.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well maybe its because you only question the ones against Un. Health care and no one else.

I just wanted to point out that your defeatist attitude is an obstacle to progress. It's just a coincidence that you are against Universal Healthcare.

Progress, in this case, does not mean Universal Healthcare. It means refining ideas until you get the best balance (whatever the topic). Every time you defeat an idea, and offer NO ALTERNATIVE, you stop the refinement process -- thereby stopping progress. So, people want to discuss possibilities, and you prohibit that. I understand you are worried about Universal Healthcare (for good reasons, no doubt), but you have to offer alternatives otherwise you reduce the value of the discussion.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I just wanted to point out that your defeatist attitude is an obstacle to progress. It's just a coincidence that you are against Universal Healthcare.

Progress, in this case, does not mean Universal Healthcare. It means refining ideas until you get the best balance (whatever the topic). Every time you defeat an idea, and offer NO ALTERNATIVE, you stop the refinement process -- thereby stopping progress. So, people want to discuss possibilities, and you prohibit that. I understand you are worried about Universal Healthcare (for good reasons, no doubt), but you have to offer alternatives otherwise you reduce the value of the discussion.

Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.

So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.

I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example

Originally Posted by me

[our government has]

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 [BleedBurgundy's] 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.

And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example


And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...