Page 5 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 1:49 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

My Lord, ruveyn! Are you really a closet liberal?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Not in the least. Since we are already affording everyone medical (even if one has to go to the Emergency Room to get it) why not do it well and cost effectively rather than badly and expensively?

ruveyn


And I'll ask again: what's the -> RIGHT<- way to do that?


Nationwide competitive private insurance plans.

For the needy some tax breaks or vouchers good for kosher insurance plans.

Your local credit unions should be able to get into the medical insurance business. Also pharmacy plans from K-Mart, Wal-Mart and Target Stores. Let everyone off a plan. Also permit the sale of European medications, medications from India on an equal basis with medications sold by U.S. companies. With all that competition prices should be kept rather low.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 1:54 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
What Conservatives like Michael Savage really want is to have the poor denied access to emergency room treatment so the rich can get another tax break.


My own state of Washington - no bastion of right wing ideology - is limiting state covered, free emergency room help to I believe just three or four visits. The excuse given is budget constraints, but it's people who depend the most on emergency rooms for medical care who have to suffer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 1:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
What Conservatives like Michael Savage really want is to have the poor denied access to emergency room treatment so the rich can get another tax break.


My own state of Washington - no bastion of right wing ideology - is limiting state covered, free emergency room help to I believe just three or four visits. The excuse given is budget constraints, but it's people who depend the most on emergency rooms for medical care who have to suffer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Maybe if they stop using dope, booze and tobacco it would make their lives healthier.

ruveyn



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

14 Sep 2011, 1:56 pm

Image



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 2:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
What Conservatives like Michael Savage really want is to have the poor denied access to emergency room treatment so the rich can get another tax break.


My own state of Washington - no bastion of right wing ideology - is limiting state covered, free emergency room help to I believe just three or four visits. The excuse given is budget constraints, but it's people who depend the most on emergency rooms for medical care who have to suffer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Maybe if they stop using dope, booze and tobacco it would make their lives healthier.

ruveyn


I seriously doubt every emergency room visit is caused by abuse of alcohol, tobacco, or drugs. On top of that, it's not just the poor who are guilty of such vices.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

14 Sep 2011, 2:09 pm

Jacoby wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Obres wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.




and how did they try to do that?


I'm guessing he's going to bring up the public option. However, the democrats did not need 1 republican in the house of senate to vote for their bill so it wasn't the republicans that stopped it. "Obamacare" is for the most part just a way to enrich insurance companies by mandating coverage.


A lot of ideas were kicked around, including the public option, which had majority public support at the time, and Obama nearly had the political capital to push it through with or without Republicans. I say nearly because unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't forced to take an "oath to their party". So just because he had enough Democrats to push it through doesn't mean they were all on board, which they weren't. However, he should have at least tried to force it through, which he almost certainly could've done at that point. Instead, like the inexperienced idealist he is, he tried to work with the Republicans and got shafted. Nobody's disputing that Obama is terrible at playing the political game. But in the end, what we got is more of a Republican system than a Democratic one. I mean, the end result is more profit for an industry that's already bloated, monopolistic, and inefficient. That has Republican written all over it.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

14 Sep 2011, 2:20 pm

It has Democrat written all over it seeing as it was exclusively their bill. I won't dispute that both parties are corporatist to the core tho so it's not surprising this is what we got, I suspect it was what they wanted the whole time. We would of been better off with none of this so called "reform". The supposed mainstreams of both parties are pretty much exactly the same and their squabbles are merely political theater.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 2:23 pm

Obres wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Obres wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.




and how did they try to do that?


I'm guessing he's going to bring up the public option. However, the democrats did not need 1 republican in the house of senate to vote for their bill so it wasn't the republicans that stopped it. "Obamacare" is for the most part just a way to enrich insurance companies by mandating coverage.


A lot of ideas were kicked around, including the public option, which had majority public support at the time, and Obama nearly had the political capital to push it through with or without Republicans. I say nearly because unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't forced to take an "oath to their party". So just because he had enough Democrats to push it through doesn't mean they were all on board, which they weren't. However, he should have at least tried to force it through, which he almost certainly could've done at that point. Instead, like the inexperienced idealist he is, he tried to work with the Republicans and got shafted. Nobody's disputing that Obama is terrible at playing the political game. But in the end, what we got is more of a Republican system than a Democratic one. I mean, the end result is more profit for an industry that's already bloated, monopolistic, and inefficient. That has Republican written all over it.


And yet the Republican nominees for president are all swearing to get rid of "Obamacare" on the very first day of their presidency.
Goes to show you how there is a wide divide between politics and reality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 5:10 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

And yet the Republican nominees for president are all swearing to get rid of "Obamacare" on the very first day of their presidency.
Goes to show you how there is a wide divide between politics and reality.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If the Republican get into power they will do just that. And our system of medical care delivery will still be broken. So the Republicans will then fiddle and diddle and eventually come up with their own version of Obama-care. As long as it is not called socialist or have something called a public-option then will be happy and the system will be just as bad (or good) depending on how one sees things.

In the mean time poor health is brought on not so much by lack of care, but of lack of sense. Eating too much, exercising too little, smoking and booze. No health insurance system will fix that unless it modifies people's living habits.

ruveyn

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

14 Sep 2011, 5:26 pm

There is an enormous lie told in America. It is told with great regularity by all stripes of people on the right. Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians all love to tell the lie of small government: That the ideal government is one that takes care of only law and order and defense, and leaves everything else to the states. Many Americans have fallen for this lie, even many here in New Jersey as we saw with the election of Gov. Chris Christie. We see this lie repeated by members of the Tea Party on Fox News and even here at the University in The Daily Targum.
First, let us note the hypocrisy of some of these people who call for small government and a balanced budget while at the same time are studying in a public university. One must question why they are here at the University — why are they using these programs when they go against everything they stand for? Shouldn't they be in one of those private universities that are so much better? Could it be perhaps that public universities are more affordable and accessible than private universities and that's why they're here? Ask them that the next time you see a University Tea Party member, I'd like to know the answer.
The Tea Party remains blind to the simple fact that government was created and exists for a reason: It exists because individual actors in the "free market" are not able to provide for the common needs of society on their own. That includes not just security but roads, electricity, piped water and common welfare. No private charity will ever be able to feed all the homeless, no private charity will ever be able to provide health care for those too poor to afford it. Ironically, what the Tea Party claims they want to prevent — the domination of big business and special interests — is exactly what will happen if the government removes itself from the economic sphere. They are very concerned about individual freedom and liberty and protecting the individual from political tyranny. Yet they fail to acknowledge the tyrannical nature of private corporations. Are the monopolies and oligopolies that will inevitably form and come to dominate the market not tyrannical? They strip individuals of their choices just as easily as and far more readily than the government could. What the Tea Party wants is nothing more than a return to the era of the Robber Barons.
Those that subscribe to the Tea Party platform reveal a purposeful callousness toward their fellow humans. An eleven-year-old girl should not go hungry in school because the subsidized school lunch program has been cancelled. As South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said, "Don't feed the poor it makes them breed." It's worth noting at this point that Bauer himself was a beneficiary of the subsidized school lunch program. Someone with cancer should not go bankrupt because they are burdened with millions of dollars of debt from being forced to pay for their treatment because the insurance companies wouldn't cover it. Every time the business cycle fluctuates, workers find themselves unemployed with no recourse while corporate CEO's give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bonuses and golden parachutes. If you believe any of this is OK, then by all means vote for the Republican Party, join the Tea Party rallies and write-in Congressman Ron Paul. You will get what you deserve — nothing more than a Hobbesian state "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
I, for one, do not want to live in such a state. As the Tea Party so aptly points out, the government is the sum of the individuals. When the government fails to provide security, not just physical but also economical, then government has fundamentally failed in its duties. How many of our citizens should we sacrifice on the altar of the free market before it is enough? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sums it up best, "But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."
. I would hope that they change the laws so they are just a little more kind and just a little more fair



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 5:31 pm

Joker wrote:
There is an enormous lie told in America. It is told with great regularity by all stripes of people on the right. Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians all love to tell the lie of small government: That the ideal government is one that takes care of only law and order and defense, and leaves everything else to the states. Many Americans have fallen for this lie, even many here in New Jersey as we saw with the election of Gov. Chris Christie. We see this lie repeated by members of the Tea Party on Fox News and even here at the University in The Daily Targum.
First, let us note the hypocrisy of some of these people who call for small government and a balanced budget while at the same time are studying in a public university. One must question why they are here at the University — why are they using these programs when they go against everything they stand for? Shouldn't they be in one of those private universities that are so much better? Could it be perhaps that public universities are more affordable and accessible than private universities and that's why they're here? Ask them that the next time you see a University Tea Party member, I'd like to know the answer.
The Tea Party remains blind to the simple fact that government was created and exists for a reason: It exists because individual actors in the "free market" are not able to provide for the common needs of society on their own. That includes not just security but roads, electricity, piped water and common welfare. No private charity will ever be able to feed all the homeless, no private charity will ever be able to provide health care for those too poor to afford it. Ironically, what the Tea Party claims they want to prevent — the domination of big business and special interests — is exactly what will happen if the government removes itself from the economic sphere. They are very concerned about individual freedom and liberty and protecting the individual from political tyranny. Yet they fail to acknowledge the tyrannical nature of private corporations. Are the monopolies and oligopolies that will inevitably form and come to dominate the market not tyrannical? They strip individuals of their choices just as easily as and far more readily than the government could. What the Tea Party wants is nothing more than a return to the era of the Robber Barons.
Those that subscribe to the Tea Party platform reveal a purposeful callousness toward their fellow humans. An eleven-year-old girl should not go hungry in school because the subsidized school lunch program has been cancelled. As South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said, "Don't feed the poor it makes them breed." It's worth noting at this point that Bauer himself was a beneficiary of the subsidized school lunch program. Someone with cancer should not go bankrupt because they are burdened with millions of dollars of debt from being forced to pay for their treatment because the insurance companies wouldn't cover it. Every time the business cycle fluctuates, workers find themselves unemployed with no recourse while corporate CEO's give themselves hundreds of millions of dollars worth of bonuses and golden parachutes. If you believe any of this is OK, then by all means vote for the Republican Party, join the Tea Party rallies and write-in Congressman Ron Paul. You will get what you deserve — nothing more than a Hobbesian state "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
I, for one, do not want to live in such a state. As the Tea Party so aptly points out, the government is the sum of the individuals. When the government fails to provide security, not just physical but also economical, then government has fundamentally failed in its duties. How many of our citizens should we sacrifice on the altar of the free market before it is enough? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sums it up best, "But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings."
. I would hope that they change the laws so they are just a little more kind and just a little more fair


What is your preference? A super large Central Government which is manned by aparatchiks , operators, empire builders ---- basically churlish base and stupid people. The U.S. government which is gigantic cannot even do something simple like deliver mail within reasonable cost constraints.

I will tell you what size does. It magnifies the worst aspects of people and it buries and minimizes their best impulses.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 5:34 pm

What we don't need is teeny tiny government and super-large business organizations whose actions are unaccountable for. What we need is small government AND small business. Enough small businesses can take care of the material needs of the nation.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

14 Sep 2011, 5:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:
What we don't need is teeny tiny government and super-large business organizations whose actions are unaccountable for. What we need is small government AND small business. Enough small businesses can take care of the material needs of the nation.

ruveyn


I posted that as a joke of course super-large business organizations do not work they do not pay their empolyees enough to live off of nor and a tiny government in my mind is a oxymoron how can our goverment every be small when their are so many diffrent branches in our own goverment I think its funny the right wing want a tiny government and your correct again
ruveyn What we need is small government AND small business. Enough small businesses can take care of the material needs of the nation.

Thats the main things we need your very wise ruveyn I myself have conservatie liberal veiws a nice mixture of both



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 6:09 pm

Any business or institution that is Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Exist.

ruveyn



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

14 Sep 2011, 6:15 pm

That should become a state motto for North Carolina I love it very true



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Sep 2011, 9:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
Any business or institution that is Too Big to Fail is Too Big to Exist.

ruveyn


I would adjust it slightly to Too Big to Fail or Nail (-Stephen Colbert), but yes - I think most folks would agree with this.