Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:34 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:Are there any like national polls that compare the votes of how many people want universal healthcare vs. those that don't?

Yes. A lot of them before the healthcare bill was passed.

Basically, if you asked about "socialized medicine" everyone said "no", but if you asked about the specifics of the bill, such as no life time limits set by insurance companies, no refusal to cover pre-existing conditions, , etc, etc, etc.... then you got a "sure, yes".

Its language, not substance. "Socialized" anything has become a bogeyman, without folks even really thinking about what it might actually mean.


... Take a look at the poll report by Rasmussen. It's been done 15 (possibly more) times on this same subject. Beginning before, and as recent as last month. Opposition to it has always beaten support in terms of percentages... and that opposition number keeps getting larger.

... And, btw, nowhere is the word, "socialized", used.

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:48 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Can you please explain to me how you are imprisoned? I mean I am all for debating a slimmer government etc. But how does, say, an extra 5c in the $ imprison you ffs? Dramatic much?


... What happens should you not pay your taxes? :roll:

No police, no fire protection (even where protection is volunteer.. because equipment, supplies do cost money), no road maintenance, no schools for any but those rich enough to pay high tuition, no environmental protection, no enforcement of banking rules, no enforcement of safety standards for food or medicine, equipment.. anything. And, yeah.. no government to deal with foreign countries, no military,

enough for you?

You keep harping on some illusionary time when you could live as you do without paying for it, or paying only what you happen to think you ought to pay. Its a child's game. Time to grow up and recognize that you have to pay for what you use .. and chances are you don't even pay fully for that NOW.


... :lol: I cannot believe you steered this far off course.

... I mentioned imprisonment - imprisonment for people who fail to follow the law - the law requiring every US citizen to purchase insurance.

... Dude comes back (misunderstanding my meaning), thinking I am equating the burden of the new taxes required to pay for Obamacare as "imprisonment". No, I was making no such comparison - I meant, if you don't follow the law, you will actually go to a big building called "jail".

... I asked, what happens if you don't pay your taxes (that's law, no?). You go to jail.

... What happens if you don't buy insurance? (again, law) ... You will go to jail.

... And you come back with this Louis & Clark fantasy shite... "Oh, you want to live totally free, with no roads and no infrastructure.... making babies under the stars on beds of pine needles without big government interference... while the rest of the world and the poor dolphins and spotted lemurs suffer".

... Unbelievable. Taxes are necessary. An unconstitutional Federal law (notice the underline there, please, Player) requiring me to purchase anything, is absolutely not necessary.

... The fed has no such authority. The onus (or anus.... take your pick) is on you, not on me.

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:56 am

Lootifer wrote:Sorry Nobunga, I misread your post. Used to reading Scotty/NS dialog.

Also it's not the gloating about your intelligence I have an issue with (I put my honors degree on my resume too), it's the place where you are gloating, and the manner in which you do it.

Why dont you tell us about how big your dick is, how fast your car is, how hot your partner is and how much you bench press while you're at it? :roll:


... 10".

... 220 mph.

... HOT!!

... 440 lbs.

... :roll: .

... Dude, the whole Hapsmo (was that him?) post was about education and freedom. I am well educated. I am not free (or, not as free as I once was). Thus my reference.

... The libs seem to bunch all conservatives up into the NASCAR-loving, never finished high school trailer trash archetype. That was my actual point. I am highly intelligent (within my frame of reference - granted, I may have been merely average at an Ivy League school), and I am hardcore conservative (though not socially so).

...

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:56 am

Nobunaga wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Can you please explain to me how you are imprisoned? I mean I am all for debating a slimmer government etc. But how does, say, an extra 5c in the $ imprison you ffs? Dramatic much?


... What happens should you not pay your taxes? :roll:

No police, no fire protection (even where protection is volunteer.. because equipment, supplies do cost money), no road maintenance, no schools for any but those rich enough to pay high tuition, no environmental protection, no enforcement of banking rules, no enforcement of safety standards for food or medicine, equipment.. anything. And, yeah.. no government to deal with foreign countries, no military,

enough for you?

You keep harping on some illusionary time when you could live as you do without paying for it, or paying only what you happen to think you ought to pay. Its a child's game. Time to grow up and recognize that you have to pay for what you use .. and chances are you don't even pay fully for that NOW.


... :lol: I cannot believe you steered this far off course.

... I mentioned imprisonment - imprisonment for people who fail to follow the law - the law requiring every US citizen to purchase insurance.

... Dude comes back (misunderstanding my meaning), thinking I am equating the burden of the new taxes required to pay for Obamacare as "imprisonment". No, I was making no such comparison - I meant, if you don't follow the law, you will actually go to a big building called "jail".

... I asked, what happens if you don't pay your taxes (that's law, no?). You go to jail.

... What happens if you don't buy insurance? (again, law) ... You will go to jail.

... And you come back with this Louis & Clark fantasy shite... "Oh, you want to live totally free, with no roads and no infrastructure.... making babies under the stars on beds of pine needles without big government interference... while the rest of the world and the poor dolphins and spotted lemurs suffer".

... Unbelievable. Taxes are necessary. An unconstitutional Federal law (notice the underline there, please, Player) requiring me to purchase anything, is absolutely not necessary.

... The fed has no such authority. The onus (or anus.... take your pick) is on you, not on me.

...

No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:58 am

Lootifer wrote:
spurgistan wrote:No, that determines who the mob / media think is truthful and who is full of shit.

That's my key beef with democracy right there. Representation is a great thing, im just not so sure people are smart enough to decide on their own representation themselves.

It depends on education, which is why the biggest attacks are on education.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:02 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
spurgistan wrote:No, that determines who the mob / media think is truthful and who is full of shit.

That's my key beef with democracy right there. Representation is a great thing, im just not so sure people are smart enough to decide on their own representation themselves.

It depends on education, which is why the biggest attacks are on education.


I don't think there is a correlation.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:54 pm

Nobunaga wrote:... The argument is not valid. Nowhere in the US Constitution are towns with fewer than fifty households declared exempt from schooling their children. Apples to oranges - a comparison pointed at the useful idiots.


I didn't say it was a Constitution Amendment. I said that is the way our forefather's ran their shit. . . And they didn't seem to mind that it wasn't in any special Constitution either. The argument is perfectly reasonable.

Nobunaga wrote:... As to, "Socialized medicine's great benefits"..., is this a reference to bankrupting the nation (further than it has already been bankrupted)? Perhaps it refers to the legions of doctors fleeing the field of medicine? No, perhaps this is a reference to how wonderful the idea of imprisoning citizens who fail to purchase products specified by the Fed? Great stuff, all that.


Nobody is in favor of this Boehner-Pelosi bullshit medical care.

Socialized Medicine is a reference to Government Provided Healthcare. It's not a reference to a Capitalistic-Darwinist-Government forced pay plan.
There's no chance that you could ever show that Socialized medicine would bankrupt the country. All the other countrys that have it are just fine. And none of them experienced a mass exodus of Doctors. So that is dumb. In fact, studies show that 75%+ of Americans settle down within 100 miles of the home that they grew up in. Money is important to some people, but there's something hereditary about sticking close to home all of your life. That's why people who live shit lives in genocidal areas never seem to leave in time. Our doctors aren't going to want to move to Venezuela just because their paychecks are coming from somewhere new.
We have the highest costing medical care in the world, and it's not caused only by our want for the best medicine ever. It's because we all pay higher fees to hospitals to offset their cost of treating people who don't have medical insurance. Because it's a US law that hospitals cannot turn away someone who needs emergency care, Illegal Immigrants and Americans with no work-provided insurance force us all to pay a shit-ton more in fees. . . and because we want the best possible care, hospitals charge even more money to provide it. In fact, in the south, many hospitals have had to cut basic services because illegal immigrants have been draining too much of the hospitals capitol. Things have gone to far when you have to call ahead to see if your local hospital delivers babies.

So what if, everyone who worked payed an extra federal tax for health care? Wouldn't that be the same thing as you paying for private insurance right now? Only, at least in theory, it should cost less because millions more would be chipping in too? People who get sick, for whatever reason, wouldn't have to stop getting medicine when their money runs out. Plus, because it would be government provided, you wouldn't need to worry about "being in network" or going broke paying 75/30. No one even understands 75/30.
This is what makes this whole debate utterly retarded at it's foundation. There's nothing negative about it, so politicians and reporters have us chasing ghosts on behalf of Kaiser. We listen to 7-second sound bites from random people on the news, then we go and bitch about what we heard with our friends. But when we apply a little skepticism, it's easy to see that we're all just as f*cking dumb as Pedro said we are. As Bubbles, the Canadian Philosopher said: "You guys are f*cked."



Night Strike wrote:It's not the government's job to do any of those things. If the insurance company is not covering the conditions you already have, then go find a new insurance company. Get the government out of the way and I can guarantee insurance companies will provide ways to get new customers through high-risk pools, etc.

I don't know if you know this, but our current system of insurance companies pretty much do what they like. If you please, you can listen to the original White-House tape of the Nixon aid explaining to President Nixon that Kaiser makes all it's money by denying services to paying customers and dropping people who are at risk of getting sick. That was the day before Nixon gave his approval. Oddly, the very lack of government protection for the meek is actually how the insurance companies became like this.

Night Strike wrote:It's the government's regulations such as forcing minimum coverages (like women contributing for prostate exams), not allowing insurance companies to charge higher premiums for people who make unhealthy choices like smoking, etc. that are the cause of our current problems. Add in the massive frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to run every possible test just to provide the same diagnosis and they all cause the massive costs we currently see.

Frivolous lawsuits are more of a state-by-state issue, not a Federal one, and insurance companies (at least in Illinois) do charge more for smokers. Though as a non-smoker myself, I don't know if that is a new Obamacare rule.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Lootifer on Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:43 pm

Nobunaga wrote:... 10".

... 220 mph.

... HOT!!

... 440 lbs.

... :roll: .
Niiice! *highfive*

... Dude, the whole Hapsmo (was that him?) post was about education and freedom. I am well educated. I am not free (or, not as free as I once was). Thus my reference.

... The libs seem to bunch all conservatives up into the NASCAR-loving, never finished high school trailer trash archetype. That was my actual point. I am highly intelligent (within my frame of reference - granted, I may have been merely average at an Ivy League school), and I am hardcore conservative (though not socially so).

I can live with that; we'll never agree with each other, but no point in not getting along eh.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Night Strike on Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:56 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.


Actually, I think it's only YOUR arguments that are trying to tie down conservatism to living in the 18th century. No actual conservatives want to live that way (if you really want to debate it, it's actually the radical, leftist environmentalists that want to return us to that way to get rid of all of the carbon dioxide), they just want to follow the principles that succeeded in that time: having a federal government that is as small as possible. Our federal government is currently on a path of perpetual growth with the election of either party just determining the pace of that growth (with the Obama administration radically accelerating it), which is why we have to elect actual conservatives who will stop that growth and reign it in.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:26 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Can you please explain to me how you are imprisoned? I mean I am all for debating a slimmer government etc. But how does, say, an extra 5c in the $ imprison you ffs? Dramatic much?


... What happens should you not pay your taxes? :roll:

No police, no fire protection (even where protection is volunteer.. because equipment, supplies do cost money), no road maintenance, no schools for any but those rich enough to pay high tuition, no environmental protection, no enforcement of banking rules, no enforcement of safety standards for food or medicine, equipment.. anything. And, yeah.. no government to deal with foreign countries, no military,

enough for you?

You keep harping on some illusionary time when you could live as you do without paying for it, or paying only what you happen to think you ought to pay. Its a child's game. Time to grow up and recognize that you have to pay for what you use .. and chances are you don't even pay fully for that NOW.


... :lol: I cannot believe you steered this far off course.

... I mentioned imprisonment - imprisonment for people who fail to follow the law - the law requiring every US citizen to purchase insurance.

... Dude comes back (misunderstanding my meaning), thinking I am equating the burden of the new taxes required to pay for Obamacare as "imprisonment". No, I was making no such comparison - I meant, if you don't follow the law, you will actually go to a big building called "jail".

... I asked, what happens if you don't pay your taxes (that's law, no?). You go to jail.

... What happens if you don't buy insurance? (again, law) ... You will go to jail.

... And you come back with this Louis & Clark fantasy shite... "Oh, you want to live totally free, with no roads and no infrastructure.... making babies under the stars on beds of pine needles without big government interference... while the rest of the world and the poor dolphins and spotted lemurs suffer".

... Unbelievable. Taxes are necessary. An unconstitutional Federal law (notice the underline there, please, Player) requiring me to purchase anything, is absolutely not necessary.

... The fed has no such authority. The onus (or anus.... take your pick) is on you, not on me.

...

No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.


... :roll:

... Has this lady lost her mind? 1780's? Who here was talking about that, besides her I mean.

... @Player: YOU must discard the rule of law to attain your little utopia. Show me precedent, show me a constitutional grounds for your arguments, and you may be taken a little more seriously.

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:52 pm

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.


Actually, I think it's only YOUR arguments that are trying to tie down conservatism to living in the 18th century. No actual conservatives want to live that way (if you really want to debate it, it's actually the radical, leftist environmentalists that want to return us to that way to get rid of all of the carbon dioxide), they just want to follow the principles that succeeded in that time: having a federal government that is as small as possible. Our federal government is currently on a path of perpetual growth with the election of either party just determining the pace of that growth (with the Obama administration radically accelerating it), which is why we have to elect actual conservatives who will stop that growth and reign it in.


Yeah I never get that simple BS either. The only way I could understand the 18th century talking points is...if you agree we are losing our freedoms more everyday, then we had more freedom yesterday than today, and the day before...and so on.

The 18th century analogy is simply an inception move to segway into slavery
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:27 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Lootifer wrote:
spurgistan wrote:No, that determines who the mob / media think is truthful and who is full of shit.

That's my key beef with democracy right there. Representation is a great thing, im just not so sure people are smart enough to decide on their own representation themselves.

It depends on education, which is why the biggest attacks are on education.


I don't think there is a correlation.

PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:38 am

Nobunaga wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.


... :roll:

... Has this lady lost her mind? 1780's? Who here was talking about that, besides her I mean.


LOL... for a "constitutional expert"..that should be obvious. .. or did you think it sprang up in 1776 perhaps?

Nobunaga wrote:... @Player: YOU must discard the rule of law to attain your little utopia. Show me precedent, show me a constitutional grounds for your arguments, and you may be taken a little more seriously.

...

Been done already, in the Supreme court, in fact. Why should I repeat what you have ignored already :roll:

But, hey, start with the Federalist papers....... since you seem to think the original creators are some kind of infallible "Gods".


then go on to some of Lincoln's arguments... etc.

The idea that a bunch of independent nations can truly be united and effective, powerful, is pretty much disputed by today's Europe. Our country has evolved.. and returning to something you think the "founding fathers" wanted is just plain stupid, even if your arguments WERE really those of all the founding fathers (as opposed to just a select few you like to quote).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:06 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but


I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Lootifer on Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:53 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but


I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:45 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: No dice. Your arguments were shot down, not just by the Supreme Court, but by plain practicality, sense. Trying to tie us to what what OK in the 1780's is not just stupid, its dangerous. As dangerous as asserting that caring for others, living with civilized rules, including paying taxes so you can have all that is somehow bad.


... :roll:

... Has this lady lost her mind? 1780's? Who here was talking about that, besides her I mean.


LOL... for a "constitutional expert"..that should be obvious. .. or did you think it sprang up in 1776 perhaps?

Nobunaga wrote:... @Player: YOU must discard the rule of law to attain your little utopia. Show me precedent, show me a constitutional grounds for your arguments, and you may be taken a little more seriously.

...

Been done already, in the Supreme court, in fact. Why should I repeat what you have ignored already :roll:

But, hey, start with the Federalist papers....... since you seem to think the original creators are some kind of infallible "Gods".


then go on to some of Lincoln's arguments... etc.

The idea that a bunch of independent nations can truly be united and effective, powerful, is pretty much disputed by today's Europe. Our country has evolved.. and returning to something you think the "founding fathers" wanted is just plain stupid, even if your arguments WERE really those of all the founding fathers (as opposed to just a select few you like to quote).


... I'm asking you, Player. Show me, from the Constitution, where the fed has authority for its mandate - to make me purchase anything. Give me a quote, then explain it to this simple trailer park cast-off.

... Thank you.

...

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:30 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but


I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Democrats and Republican? Of coures not. And.. its not necessarily and intentional plot as such. I can bring out the evidence, but it will have to be later, probably after the holidays.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:34 am

Nobunaga wrote:... I'm asking you, Player. Show me, from the Constitution, where the fed has authority for its mandate - to make me purchase anything. Give me a quote, then explain it to this simple trailer park cast-off.

... Thank you.

...

...

The mandate is to provide for the health and welfare of the constitution, though I am fighting illness and not going to dig it up the exact wording right now.

I realize there are plenty of people who agree with you, but you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is just ignoring the constitution... and that is plain false and rather egocentric of you.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:06 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but


I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Democrats and Republican? Of coures not. And.. its not necessarily and intentional plot as such. I can bring out the evidence, but it will have to be later, probably after the holidays.


Okay good. Here's the evidence you need to provide to convince me - Studies and other assorted legal and commercial documents showing that there is a group or groups of people with the authority and ability to distort the education in the United States with the intent of dumbing down the populace. If you can't provide these things, don't bother providing the "evidence" you're going to bring out.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby john9blue on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:26 am

wait, we're supposed to IGNORE conspiracy theorists?

i thought we were supposed to laugh at them until new evidence is unearthed vindicating their theories, at which point we claim to have known all along
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:14 pm

Lootifer wrote: Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...

LOL...

It absolutely depends on the kind of education. However, a GOOD education is not so much about giving facts as teaching people how to find what they need, how to think critically. In short, a GOOD education is absolutely paramount to making good decisions.

I think your basic point, though, is that there is a difference between "schooling" and "education". I have to say that this is one area where the US and Candien philosphies differ. I think our system.. of giving a broad base .. is actually better, but its just that its being attacked and torn apart. Ironically, a lot of what is now being dismissed as "fluff" by groups like the Tea Party is part of what made our system work effectively.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:43 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but


I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Democrats and Republican? Of coures not. And.. its not necessarily and intentional plot as such. I can bring out the evidence, but it will have to be later, probably after the holidays.


Okay good. Here's the evidence you need to provide to convince me - Studies and other assorted legal and commercial documents showing that there is a group or groups of people with the authority and ability to distort the education in the United States with the intent of dumbing down the populace. If you can't provide these things, don't bother providing the "evidence" you're going to bring out.


First of all, you are distorting what I am saying, either intentionally or unintentionally. What you are asking for, when you imply a conspiracy, is causation. That is something different. I referred to correlation. I have mentioned "causation", also, but in no way the kind of conspiracy to which you refer... not at all. (I get to that later).

First, the esay part: There IS a correlation. Just look at what has happened in education, funding, etc... and who is in power. The evidence shows that the quality of education is going down, the cost is going up, more and more opportunities are being shoved overseas.. and the education system is being more and more "reformed" to meet nonexistant needs or the needs of companies like Walmart. This is happening exactly as things are getting better and better for those at the very top. And, given that education is the one route that allows Americans, historically, to migrate up the economic ladder, the result is absolutely real and true that this is contributing to even more of a divide projected in the future...a divide that is already increasing.

Specific policies that are making this worse include the whole "no child left behind bit" (patterned after Texas which now has one of the absolute worst public education systems in the country!), increased mandates while at the same time funding gets decreased, etc. The biggest problem right now, with schools is that many are asked to do more and more of the parent's jobs, just to even be halfway effective, and have less and less time to do their real job of teaching. Very high numbers for subsidized lunches, kids showing up in the winter with no coats, etc, etc..... these things are very real, not just in "inner city" schools, bur rural districts all over the country. We have a problem with obesity, but our local elementary school doesn't even let kids outside after October 1rst , except for occasional special snow activities that require special parental permission. Why? Because about half the kids show up in thin dresses, t-shirts and no jacket even in a snowstorm! And... half of those just don't have better clothing (though there is no excuse for that.. the local churches and salvation army both, along with the school itself, have winter clothing available). That is just one very, very small example. We can berate the parents or we can buckle down, accept that the parents are idiots and do what has to be done to make sure that those kids at least have a reasonable chance to take a different route than their parents. (NOTE: I am talking elementary school, here... higher up, the student rightfully MUST have more responsibility!).

Anyway, the result has been a sliding educational system that costs more and more, but is less and less effective. Note that the same folks voting for, approving so many of these mandates are often sending their kids to schools with very different policies (that, alone, speaks of disgusting hypocrisy).

The "causation" bit is more difficult and unless you want to read a book, which you have indicated in the past you do not, I cannot lay it ALL out here (which is part of why I said "pay attention"... also, the exact circumstances and situation differ slightly in various areas, and these people are very, very smart at hiding the results of what they are putting forward).

I wrote about a local parent meeting in the thread about the skills gap. I am dead serious that I was alone out of 20 people to put history, science, etc on my list of what I expected the school to give kids. That was dismissed as well.. that's technical, we want our kids to be 'good people' ". AND ... that attitude is very prominant in smaller towns (especially) across the country. Why? Because they are being told by the people to whom they listen... sometimes clergy, sometimes "political" types (local leaders, Tea Partiers, etc.) That this "educational elite" garbage is destroying our nation, that most scientists are out to "get" the churches, just promoting their "agendas". Etc.

For causation.. it is not that they are saying "hey, let's destroy the educational system". Its similar to, well.. make that exactly like what is happening with young earth creationism. There are the people who just listen and either are too busy to care or just don't know any better than to believe what they are being told (particularly when its clergy doing the "telling"). Then you have the "sincere" people. I know that the Morris's (both father and son, with whom I have spoken) are sincere in their beliefs. They really and truly believe they are promoting "God's word".. and therefore just plain will NOT see anything different. In their minds, listening to the "opposition" is like listening to the devil.. sounds good, but full of lies. Thirdly, you have the folks for whom I reserve my real anger. They are true manipulators. They don't really care about the "message", per se. They are political leaders and business leaders and another group that is harder to define, the folks who just plain seek "power". (they tend to laugh at those who use their own money to run for themselves) BUT.. here is an important point. Even these people do not really see themselves as "evil" or "doing harm". Some honestly have convinced themselves that what is good for them IS good for all. (and, have done an excellent job of convincing many that this is true). Some have a true "Machiavellien" outlook.. more or less figuring that its "screw or be screwed". Many just see it all as some kind of big "game" and just never really fully "get" how much their "games" impact average people... The bottom line is that for a LOT of reasons they don't really and truly connect negative outcomes for "the masses" with their actions.

I can get into this more, but in the past you have pretty much just dismissed evidence I have brought up, etc. So, rather than saying more right now, I will just let this lie and see what issues you have.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby Nobunaga on Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:46 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:... I'm asking you, Player. Show me, from the Constitution, where the fed has authority for its mandate - to make me purchase anything. Give me a quote, then explain it to this simple trailer park cast-off.

... Thank you.

...

...

The mandate is to provide for the health and welfare of the constitution, though I am fighting illness and not going to dig it up the exact wording right now.

I realize there are plenty of people who agree with you, but you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is just ignoring the constitution... and that is plain false and rather egocentric of you.


... Wait, wait, wait. If I tell you that the Constitution in no way gives the federal government the authority to impose a mandate that I must purchase something... I am being egocentric?

... Sure, I like myself well enough, but since I did not actually write the Constitution, your accusation seems a bit off.

... I'm still waiting for your explanation, btw. Show me where, precisely, in the Constitution, we give the federal government such authority.

...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Waiver Totals In!!!

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:38 pm

Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers that excuse them from participating in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from participation.

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.


I wonder if this shortfall is money was counted when the administration calculated how much money the reform would save. :roll:

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Socialized Healthcare: Supreme Court to Decide

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:38 am

Nobunaga wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:... I'm asking you, Player. Show me, from the Constitution, where the fed has authority for its mandate - to make me purchase anything. Give me a quote, then explain it to this simple trailer park cast-off.

... Thank you.

...

...

The mandate is to provide for the health and welfare of the constitution, though I am fighting illness and not going to dig it up the exact wording right now.

I realize there are plenty of people who agree with you, but you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is just ignoring the constitution... and that is plain false and rather egocentric of you.


... Wait, wait, wait. If I tell you that the Constitution in no way gives the federal government the authority to impose a mandate that I must purchase something... I am being egocentric?

Assuming that the view of those with whom you agree is the only valid point is very much egocentric, yes. The fact that you insist there is no debate means you have not paid attention. And, since you have not paid attention to date.. why should I waste my time attempting to inform you.

Plus, it HAS been said many times. The government is give authority to do what is needed for the welfare and protection of society.

Beyond that, I don't like the current law, but it is an improvement over what we had. We need a true national system with options, much like they have in France. But that has been said many times before and you cannot even be bothered to do more than declare "socialism" and "unconstitutional".
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee