13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 8/13/12 12:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
They have master's degrees and perform a vital service, yet are lucky to get paid as much as a 10 yr veteran of assembly line manufacturing (with their possible high school diploma).
Doctors don't get tenure.
Doctors don't receive special treatment by screwing up.
You would think that IF teaching is such an important profession, then teachers would be held to the same standards as doctors since, after all, teaching is just oh so important and vital to our country's future.
And those horrible construction and assembly line workers... how dare they actually produce something. How dare they make things for people to enjoy, like that air conditioned building the teachers in developed nations get to work in while those ungrateful construction people have to put up buildings in over 100 degree temperatures without AC while working with heavy equipment.
And, how dare they manage to do those things without going into college debt, getting student loans for an overpriced education and contributing to our education bubble.
You heard me Assembly line/Construction workers... FUCK YOU!
Economic Left/Right: 9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33
At 7/23/12 12:18 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Defending us from what ?
The taliban ?
Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictators, that did't exist !
And if you look into it, you'll see most of the really horrible weapons like gas bombs etc, Saddam got from the good ole USA .
Amazing how after all this time, you still don't know my position on that...
But I didn't say you were under any threat.
Only that our presence allows YOUR politicians to divert resources from what would be spent on a military, to be spend instead on social programs.
We don't need you to protect us & if anything we need protection from you !
You don't pay attention do you?
I DON'T want our military in your stupid ass country.
At 7/23/12 09:34 AM, morefngdbs wrote: To all of you who believe the US health Care system is one of the best in the world.
No one here is claiming the US has the best Healthcare system in the world, dumbass.
In fact, in case you weren't paying attention, I've clearly stated that I hate the US Healthcare system.
But here's the funny part: Canadian Healthcare is also fucking horrible... just in slightly different ways.
While your HC system sucks because it's run by Government, the US HC System sucks because it's run as Corporate Healthcare.
It's so amusing watching you idiots brag about how great your healthcare systems are when every one of them (US Included) is being crushed by debt and obligations.
Even more amusing on how Canada and Europe can only spend the amount of money they do on Healthcare bc the US picks up their tab on Defense.
At 7/17/12 05:58 AM, Feoric wrote:
so, to answer your question: currently. presently, tens of thousands of people in this country die because they don't have health insurance. my question to you is this: what are they worth to you? if you're going to be opposed to UHC in this country you have to reconcile the fact that you are putting the cost of human lives ahead of monetary costs. are you comfortable with this?
Question: How is any of that possible when Hospitals are required by law to treat EVERYONE regardless of their ability to pay?
Now just think about it.
At 7/17/12 01:30 AM, Feoric wrote:At 7/17/12 12:44 AM, Memorize wrote: Because when you don't have something you want, it makes it ok to steal it from someone else.so you think taxpayer money going to help poor people pay for healthcare so they don't die is stealing?
Then answer the question I posed before.
In what period of US History did mass numbers of civilians die due to lack of access to medicine without Government providing it?
At 7/16/12 09:56 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:At 7/16/12 08:32 PM, MikeVouros wrote: I can't wait till NobamaCare is thrown in the friggen trash.Then, I would be without healthcare. fuck that.
Because when you don't have something you want, it makes it ok to steal it from someone else.
At 7/14/12 07:29 AM, BumFodder wrote: I find it sad that someone cant tell the difference between a ponzi scheme and how you pay for your own pension when you retire.
Difference: I have the option to save for retirement.
Social Security forces me into the system.
Secondly, did you even bother to read the question I asked?
The retirement age is 67.
Life Expectancy is 78.
Retirees receive ALL their money back by the time they reach 71.
Where do the other 7 years of Social Security payments come from?
Yeah, you can describe them similarly as in paying older investors with newer investors money, but in practice theyre nothing alike because the government isnt trying to make money and theyre going to be able to pay everyone back which has been proved by the surplus.
Expect that the surplus won't exist in 20 years (as established earlier).
Guess what! Ponzi Schemes always run a "Surplus" when they begin, and can last for years. But they always go bust because you need more and more investors to come in to pay off previous ones.
It will never collapse because:
2: People wont stop paying into it
Because Politicians FORCE me into it.
3: Theres no external force that will stop it
National Debt.
4: The government isnt trying to make money off of it, its giving it to retired people
No... The money they collect is put into the General Fund, which is then used to spend on infrastructure, wars, weapons manufacturing, and subsidies.
If youre going to call that a ponzi scheme then the economy is a ponzi scheme too.
And you're still an idiot.
Correction: Retirement age used to be 65 when people's life expectancy was 67.
At 7/13/12 04:12 PM, Feoric wrote:
the debt ceiling always gets raised. it always has and it always will. it's just that every now and then it doesn't get raised on time due to political fuckery which has absolutely nothing to do about the economic interest of the country. it's used as a political card every now and then so one party and paint an opposing party as the bad guy.
I love how you get to have your cake and eat it too!
so what? every country on earth except 4 has national debt. besides, the clinton surplus was on the "boom" side of the boom and bust cycle due to massive deregulation. the bust happened during the bush admin and is still being felt today.
Uh... no.
Bush is and always will be an idiot...
But the boom during the late 90's was due to an Internet Stock bubble that eventually crashed during the very beginning of Bush's term in 2001, which prompted Bush to "stimulate" which lead to the Housing bubble.
Clinton's surplus and projected surpluses were imaginary.
why?
You can't have a system that was built on 16 workers per 1 retiree when said retiree's life expectancy was a mere two years after collecting benefits... to where it is today... that being 2.2 workers per retiree where said retiree life expectancy is decades of receiving social security checks (far more than they put it).
...huh? a ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment scheme that pays investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, instead of profit earned by the individual or organization running the scheme. how on earth does this fit social security? do you plan on never retiring?
Go back and read.
Group A is forced into social security with the promise that their money will be stored and/or invested.
The Government puts that money into the General Fund and spends it on Wars, missiles and pet programs.
So in order to pay off Group A, the Government forces a new Generation of peoples (Group B) into Social Security, thereby collecting money to pay off Group A.
HOW is that NOT a Ponzi Scheme?
you're talking about a hypothetical situation that may or may not happen in the future so that really shouldn't affect what the current status quo of the program is.
Right.
Because repackaging bunk mortgages and selling them did wonders in the long run for our Economy, didn't it?
lmao, please explain yourself here.
You can't be that retarded... right?
Because it primarily steals from younger, poorer People to give to older, richer Seniors.uh, no it doesn't. do you not pay into social security or something?
I pay into Social Security with my minimum wage job while being driven into debt for College to pay for the lives of Richer Seniors who lived through far better economic times and saved up money for their retirement.
Jackass.
please reread what you wrote here. you pay into SS because you expect to use the program. how the fuck is that stealing?
Was it MY CHOICE to pay into it?
Exactly! Fuck you.
so, health insurance is a ponzi scheme, too?
Do you understand what the word INSURANCE means?
Do you realize what would happen to an insurance company if it blew ALL the money it was SUPPOSED to use to cover people's health needs on useless, unrelated shit that broke their contract?
um, reagan already raised it to age 67 for ssri back in the 80s, while raising fica taxes and creating the surplus to cover boomers' retirements. at age 67, it's likely the oldest retirement age among countries that provide government pensions, or at the very least one of the oldest, and had the surplus not been plundered to fund tax cuts and wars, we'd be fine.
Except here's your problem...
The retirement age USED to be 65 when people's life expectancy was 63.
Now the retirement age is 67 when people's life expectancy is around 80.
By the time people reach the age of 71, they've already received back all the money they put in to Social Security. So ask yourself this question:
WHERE does the money to cover the other 7-10 years come from?
and just what are those methods, exactly?
You don't pay attention at all, do you?
it's pretty simple: lower the age, instead of increasing it, and get healthier people in the pool, and provide cost controls on prescription drugs, and stop fuckery with fica tax cuts
Good luck with that fantasy!
i don't know how you can call someone a fucking idiot and then go on to unironically claim social security is a ponzi scheme.
Funny how I can accurately describe the way Social Security is run (The very Definition of a Ponzi Scheme), and you're only response is "nu-uh"
As I said to the other guy: You're as retarded as those jackass religious people who claim God exists... "Just because..."
Hell, not one of you fucking idiots has given me 3 examples of a US Government program running a surplus and re-investing the money back into itself.
At 7/13/12 04:43 PM, BumFodder wrote:
What about the question of whether you know anything you are going on about?
You haven't even attempted to refute ANYTHING I've said.
You're a worthless, pathetic piece of trash whose sole reason for existing is to amuse me with your stupidity.
At 7/13/12 06:26 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Yeah, as well every other program funded by the Federal Government.
90% of which are... a waste... and pointless.
Is it fair to say that your charitable hospital bears some responsibility for why you are currently in the red?
Depends...
Did I have a CHOICE to go into such a program?
Yeah, it WAS a budget surplus, i.e. the Government took in more revenue than it spent, leaving a whole bunch of extra cash lying around, some of which, by the way, was supposed to go towards paying off some of the national debt. That is, until Bush came into office and nixed it all by giving out massive tax cuts for the rich and starting a couple of foreign wars.
How the fuck does that make ANY sense?
The Surplus was under Clinton. HE could've used that money.
He didn't. He still had to BORROW money. That Surplus is useless.
And as explained above: That wasn't a real surplus. It was built on a phony mid - late 90's internet stock boom that bust as soon as Clinton left office.
Every chart and graph detailing surpluses was based on false economic indicators. No different than the housing market.
If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then by Jove it is the single most long lived and benign Ponzi scheme in history.
It works wonders when you can FORCE people against their will into it.
Millions of seniors collecting their checks consistently over a period of 77 years with the Social Security Administration giving out exhaustive annual reports of the condition of the fund (which kind of defeats the purpose of a Ponzi scheme, which relies on concealing the actual state of the program to its investors).
Do you think Madoff would've went bust if he could force people to invest in him?
A system being unsustainable does not make it a Ponzi scheme.
No. How it's run makes it a Ponzi Scheme.
And Ponzi Schemes always eventually fail.
I'm glad you're paying attention. No, after 20 years or so is when the surplus is expected to have been depleted, at which point benefits would have to be reduced by about 25% to make the program break even with the amount of money it takes in.
Goodie. Not a surplus.
And by "younger, poorer people" you are of course referring to "everyone who collects a paycheck". And since those fabulously wealthy old people have themselves paid into the system with every single one of THEIR paychecks, I think that it's not unfair to say that they are entitled to get that money back.
See above...
Retirement Age: 67
Life Expectancy: 78
They receive ALL the money they put into Social Security by the time they reach the age of 71.
Since they're still receiving money well after the age of 71, WHERE is all that money coming from?
At 7/13/12 02:01 PM, BumFodder wrote:
What are you on about? I wasnt even trying to make an argument which was pretty clear.
Now think about what you just said...
You're on a political forum... making statements... without trying to make an argument.
You're a fucking moron.
At 7/13/12 06:33 AM, BumFodder wrote:
But your comment was so stupid that theres no possible way you could make a rebuttal that makes sense. no need to be so butthurt
If it's that stupid, then it should've been easy to make the rebuttal.
The reason why you don't make any counter-arguments is because you know full well that you don't have any.
You're response is just as idiotic as those religious morons who say "God exists... just because..."
At 7/12/12 12:38 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:At 7/11/12 09:57 PM, Memorize wrote: Translation: There is no surplus.When you take in more money than you spend, what do you call the extra money you have? A surplus.
Except that they admit they needed to raise the debt ceiling IN ORDER to keep it funded.
That's not a surplus.
That's like calling the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency running a surplus, even though the National Debt still went UP.
Social Security is currently taking in more funds than it spends. This fact does not change just because you cannot say the same about the rest of America's budget.
It wont' be that way in 20 years.
Hey... like a Ponzi Scheme.
No, what would happen is that in about 20 years or so, Social Security would run out of its current surplus. At that point, it is projected that Social Security would be able to give out only about 75% of benefits for another 40 years or so. This is if nothing is done to change the program. Not an ideal outcome, but it's not nearly as much of a disaster as the politicians are making it out to be.
Giving people a 25% cut does not make it a surplus, does it?
Just because corrupt politicians are intent on robbing Social Security instead of fixing the damn budget doesn't mean Social Security is a bad program.
Uh... yes it is.
Because it primarily steals from younger, poorer People to give to older, richer Seniors.
It just means that they would rather screw Americans out of a largely successful program than raise the taxes of rich people and big corporations by even one cent.
Yes, because when you run a program into the ground by stealing from people... the solution is to steal from more people.
Social Security is not beyond fixing (tweaks have been made to SS several times throughout its lifetime), so writing it off as a Ponzi scheme destined to fail is not helpful.
People receive more money from Social Security than they put into it by several years, sometimes decades.
When Social Security was first created, the average life expectancy was such that you were only supposed to live for 2 years collecting benefits (unless you were a minority... where you were supposed to die before collecting).
We now live decades longer and any mention of raising the retirement age today to reflect the increased life expectancy of the population is met with boos and threats of losing votes (or ads showing an elderly person being thrown off a cliff).
You honestly think it'll change? That's hilarious.
And adopting a revoltingly cynical mindset such as yours is really going to help, right?
I'll least go with tried and true methods and actually create a Surplus, unlike you, merely HOPING things will work out.
Look, I'm not even disputing that the current American Government isn't exactly the most trustworthy and reliable bunch when it comes to running the country, but, to use a sports metaphor, writing off every play based on the quality (or lack thereof) of your team isn't going to help you win any games. The fact that your team might not be good enough to carry out the game plan doesn't say anything about the game plan itself.
Wonderful.
Now tell me how you're going to get a bunch of POLITICIANS who've never come close to running a business and who spend OTHER people's money while being in the back pockets of Corporations and Unions, to run the play.
And the reason for that is that I can't think of any program that resembles the Public Option.
I gave you leeway in naming anything.
The Public Option might very well have been unique in American legislative history had it been passed. You'd have to ask someone who knows more about the history of US legislation if there's anything that compares.
You expect a Government that pays $600 for a nail and screwdriver.
A Government that declares unnecessary wars and has a pointless, costly, world empire.
A Government that's responsible for 60% of Health Care spending while only being able to provide VA-like care to 50 million people in a nation of 320 Million.
A Government that can't even run a surplus in delivering the MAIL, even when the law states that other mail carriers can not directly Compete with Government mail...
You honestly believe THAT Government is going to run the Public Option in an affordable way.
Already, Obamacare, within a span of just 2 years has had its spending projections double from its initial cost.
I can think of an example of the principle, though, albeit not in America. The healthcare system of my home country, Sweden, works on a non-profit basis. Any surplus funds are reinvested into the system to hire more doctors and nurses, drive prices of procedures down, buy new equipment, conduct medical research, etc. Sweden spends about half as much per capita per year on healthcare as the United States.
Again: 60% of our Healthcare Spending is Government and it only covers a mere fraction of the population.
At 7/12/12 09:17 PM, BumFodder wrote:
I hope you are trolling.
Why are there so many autistics in the politics forum?
I like how you bitch about my 1 sentence reply, only to not give me any rebuttal whatsoever to my accusation of Social Security being run as a Ponzi Scheme.
Way to be a fucking idiot. People like you make me enjoy life!
At 7/11/12 03:28 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Because although Social Security in and of itself brings in more than it gives out, if the Federal Government can't raise enough money either through taxes or through borrowing to give out the payments it owes to its people, then there isn't much to do about it is there?
Translation: There is no surplus.
None of this mess is the fault of Social Security. It's because the Government decided to go and blow all of it's money on foreign wars and giving out tax cuts to really wealthy people.
You don't get it, do you?
Even IF the Government ran Social Security like it was SUPPOSED to, the social security fund would run out in another 20 years.
Now think about how you just described as the way Social Security is run. A Generation of individuals (Group A) contributes to social security. The Government then uses that money to fund everything BUT Social Security. So in order to pay off Group A, the Government forces a new group of individuals (Group B) to also put money into social security so it can pay off Group A while continuing to use Social Security funds for other projects and programs.
This is the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme!
No, you mean at how you assume they work.
Based on the Government's Previous Track record. Unlike your hopeful naivety
You write off the Public Option and make wild predictions on how it would ultimately fail based on nothing but the assertion that government can't do anything right, ever.
Says the guy who couldn't name me just 3 Government programs that could run a surplus and re-invest in itself.
At 7/11/12 06:54 PM, TNT wrote:
Technically he is right because congress has the power to tax (ever since 1787), but I kept trying to correct his argument because he has committed a nasty slippery slope fallacy. I explained that since Freedom of Religion still applies in the constitution, there would be no way that they will probably pass such a tax on people not going to church.
Also I added that there will probably not be a tax on abortion or gun laws as well because of the 2nd Amendment and Roe vs. Wade. Lastly I mentioned that the Affordable Care Act was ruled constitutional is because there isn't anything specific in the constitution where you have the freedom to buy what you want. So in the end, I suggested using a comparison to congress could easily pass a tax on those who do not donate to charity.
Except that Politicians have a way of getting around that.
They could argue that the tax doesn't actually FORCE them to go to Church. They don't have to go to Church if they don't want to. They still have that choice, but they'll still be taxed for it.
Also, think about what you're supporting. You're supporting a law that taxes you... for doing NOTHING.
You're already taxed when you work, serving people and being productive through an income tax.
You're already taxed when you buy products through a sales tax.
You're already taxed on the property that you supposedly "own" through a property tax.
And now the Government is telling you that not only will you be taxed while you work and when you buy insurance... you'll also be taxed if you DON'T buy Insurance.
I hope you're happy with becoming a permanent customer of the Insurance Corporations.
He kinda ignored my point and continued saying that what he said can happen. So much for trying to give him a more probable comparison...
We've locked up people for political speech despite the first amendment.
We've gone to war without a declaration, despite the Constitution.
We've banned guns in certain cities, despite the second amendment.
Hell, we're keeping people Indefinitely Detained RIGHT NOW, despite the 4th.
It's not just that it "Can" happen. It already has.
At 7/10/12 11:40 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
I'm not sure there is a program comparable to the Public Option to point to. So what?
It means you're just as much of a gullible moron as the Conservatives who stand by our oh-so wonderful Government's positions on War-mongering.
Not sure what you're getting at. Social Security is running a $2.7 trillion surplus at the moment. Are you blaming the largely successful Social Security program for the fiscal irresponsibility of the current clowns in Congress who want to steal from it?
I like how you actually believe that bullshit.
Ask yourself this 1 question: If Social Security truly is running a surplus of $2.7 Trillion, then why did Congressional Politicians claim that if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, Senior Citizen's Social Security benefits would be threatened?
I was just pointing out how it was supposed to work. You're the one jumping to conclusions of how it's going to end up being something completely different from what was originally intended. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but if you're dismissing everything based on the preconceived notion that everything the government does is going to fail, then you might as well not have a government at all (halfway through writing this sentence I realize that that's probably exactly what you'd like).
I don't arrive at conclusions based on how "things are SUPPOSED to work", I arrive at them based on how they DO work.
At 7/10/12 03:07 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
If it is privatized, then yes, it is no longer "Social" Security, it's just another private pension fund.
At least that Pension Fund can't be raided to fund unnecessary and illegal wars.
At 7/9/12 03:26 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:At 7/9/12 02:35 AM, Memorize wrote: Time Period 1:Yeah, that's pretty much what we have now, right wingers wanting to privatize Social Security (i.e. no Social Security), whereas left wingers want to keep it as it is or expand it.
Right Position: No Social Security
Left Position: Supports Social Security
Yes, because obviously privatizing something means it will never exist...
Like private bridges...
or private roads...
or Private tolls...
or private construction companies...
or Private Auto Manufacturers...
or Private Charities...
or Private Investments...
At 7/9/12 03:43 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
Yeah, this isn't how the Public Option would have worked. The government would basically have set up an insurance company that would offer various healthcare insurance plans that people could purchase. It would not have been funded by the government through the budget, but would run on the insurance payments from its customers, just like any other private insurance company. The only difference from private insurance would be that instead of taking out profits, all surplus money would be put back into the company to drive healthcare premiums down.
Name me 3 instances of a Government Program actually saving money and being re-invested into itself to drive down prices.
How's that lock box for social security working out?
I love how no matter how many times a Government fails at meeting its stated goals, you people continue to believe every single one of their "plans" for how their programs are to attempt to operate.
At 7/9/12 03:10 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:
I'm sorry, the liberals get to define what left and right are? Conservatives in America have so much control over the definition and everyday use of the word "liberal" that no self-respecting American liberal wants to be identified by the term anymore. If anyone has mastered redefining the political spectrum, it's conservatives.
In all fairness though, who would actually want to even be associated with the term of a Modern Day liberal?
If anything, you should thank those hypocritical, jackass conservatives for doing them a favor.
At 7/7/12 09:26 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:At 7/7/12 08:52 PM, BillroyandJonjon wrote: i just based it on his political performance, his election campaigns, and his two auto-biographies. i might have answered one or two wrong....Yeah, try a dozen or more. Obama further to the left than me? Further to the left than ANYONE? That's rich.
It's funny how when Liberals can push the country further and further economically left over the course of many decades, they then get to redefine what left/right it is out of that.
For instance:
Time Period 1:
Right Position: No Social Security
Left Position: Supports Social Security
Time Period 2:
Right Position: Supports Social Security, but with means testing to save money.
Left Position: Supports Social Security, but against means testing.
Time Period 3 rolls around. Someone says Social Security should be widdled down/gotten rid of, the left accuses him of being an extremist and anyone who supports means testing as "right wing."
At 7/9/12 12:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I like the idea of free clinics, but the problem is any "free" or "non-profit" healthcare enterprise is not equal to the for profit kind. They won't be able to afford and access the better equipment for certain tests and treatments and procedures. So in the end, there will still be cases that would need a for profit hospital and we then go back to the same old problem...which brings us back to why the whole issue came up to begin with...the more people that are insured, the better we'll all be.
Think of it like computers.
Sure, the poor just a decade ago couldn't really afford a good, decent computer, but what now costs $2000 today will end up being sold at Walmart for $500 just 2 - 3 years from now.
Yes, people with more money will receive better care.
But I'd prefer medicine to advance at a faster pace so the poor will be able to receive it quickly rather than our current condition of medical technology being held back and costing an outrageous amount of money.
But there is a false equivalency you're pushing in acting like even if free clinics come back and become more widespread it's going to be EXACTLY the same as a for profit hospital. This simply isn't the case.
But Health Insurance would be cheaper and it wouldn't be costing the Federal Government more than its own Military Empire that has over 900 bases in around 150 countries.
You want to keep up our current system or get politicians more involved? Fine.
But don't go whining about how they spend the money or how much they spend on it. Pretty soon, I get to laugh at all the idiots who thought getting the Government involved would be a good idea, when the Government's finances go to shit and suddenly no one can afford it.
So I don't see what a policy that was stricken from what actually got passed into law has anything to do with this conversation.
I wasn't the one who brought up a Public Option.
If they go bust like the Post Office, the Government just takes more in taxes, borrows, or prints money to make up the difference.If who goes bust? What institution are we talking about going bust now?
Say you have a public option funded by tax payers and the Government.
Just like the Post Office.
What will happen when the Public Option can't raise enough money to cover everyone? The same thing will happen as with the Post Office... just borrow or print the money to maintain its worthless existence.
I think you don't understand what claim I'm speaking of. I'm speaking of the swipe you took at Liberals and how they treat the bill that got passed. That I have yet to see truly substantiated. You haven't shown me evidence of even one Liberal saying that the AHA is "fair competition"
Do I really need to link to Youtube videos showing liberals talking about competition between the Public Option and Private Insurers would be a "Good thing?"
I dunno about record numbers...but it's fair to say people WILL be dying without access to healthcare...is that something you feel should be acceptable in a civilized and developed nation? Especially one that constantly tries to say they're the best in the world?
Here's your problem.
You're making claims about people being left dying of illnesses in the streets because they couldn't get access to care... yet you can't name me one instance of this happening in our country even in the 1800's.
You're the one who has to prove it will happen.
Personally, I think this is the wrong question. Because it seems to me there's an inherent question of "how many dead people from lack of treatment is an acceptable number of dead people?" wrapped up in it. So really you're bringing up multiple side questions and trying to make the issue seem simple yet exposing that it really isn't.
You're the one making the claim that many more people will end up dead.
Back it up.
At 7/8/12 08:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
THere is no one paying while others do not.
Except that no one has a choice, now do they?
Such democratic people you are.
Oh you say, welfare people don't pay or the unemployed pay no taxes !
I could care less.
When I look at the fact that almost half pay no income taxes, I consider that half way in the right direction of no one having to pay it.
They do when the tax comes from taxes, goods & services. You buy a pair of sneakers theres a tax on them it goes to health care.
Then can you give me an example of any instance in your life where you can't be taxed or fined?
I work and be productive: I'm taxed.
I buy something: I'm taxed.
I don't buy what politicians want me to buy (ie. become a permanent customer base for Insurance Corporations): I'm taxed.
Why should I have to pay for merely being alive?
Doesn't matter if your earnings are from drug dealing & the Gov knows nothing about your earnings. You go buy some bling, you pay a 'goods tax' it goes to health care.
GET IT NOW ????
That wasn't the issue I was getting at, but ok.
Everyone pays ,anyone can get help.
Only people who are too lazy to get up and help themselves say that.
I've not once met a self-proclaimed liberal working in a soup kitchen. Why? Because they're idea of "Help" is forcing someone else to do it.
Its very simple, everyone pay to help thise sick today, everyone pays when you're the one sick or injured tomorrow
With absolutely no choice in the matter whatsoever.
Plus if you think about it instead of freaking the fuck out, its like putting money in your mnedical bank account,
Oh, you mean like Social Security... where the Government puts it in the General Fund to spend on War, missiles, bombs, corporate welfare...
building up for when you are the injured or sick one & it makes sense especially to get workers healthy again & productive as quickly as possible.
Which has nothing to do with Government mandated medicine, but mostly with the healthy life style choices of a culture.
The USof A is theonly supposedly civilized & 1st world nation that still bankrupts its citizens for medical care !
60% of Healthcare spending in the United States is Government.
35% is Private.
Of that 60%, it only covers around 50 million people while providing mediocre coverage, while that 35% covers over 200 million where the majority of its 'clients' are satisfied with their Coverage.
Now if a Government that's responsible for 60% of our Healthcare in our country can only barely cover around 50 million, what do you think will happen when its control is increased?
You are not paying for anyone else, you are paying for YOU !
Only in a liberal's bullshit, fantasy logic can anyone construe someone taking money from you at gunpoint and giving it to someone else as "Paying for yourself."
At 7/8/12 04:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I don't see where there's a government mandate in that...could you explain where the government fits into that equation?
Hospitals are required to treat people immediately regardless of whether or not they can actually pay.
This problem was created when hospitals and administrators became upset that doctors were providing their services for free in their own state or outside their states to free medical clinics and got the Governments to, more or less, shut them down.
Huh? I don't think we're actually talking about the same thing whatsoever now...
One relies on Voluntarism, the other relies on force.
The Public Option can never actually be "defeated" because they don't need to make a profit like who they're "competing" against.
If they go bust like the Post Office, the Government just takes more in taxes, borrows, or prints money to make up the difference.
But it is your fault for making a claim, and then not substantiating the claim. Something you tend to do a lot when you'd rather just end a post with something insulting against a person or group.
What? I made the claim and substantiated it within the same post.
You just didn't read all the way down.
And I actually have a question for every single one of you:
If people will truly be dying in record numbers in the streets if you don't have this mandate or force hospitals to treat people... then point to me a time anywhere in United States History where mass numbers of people were dying of illnesses and being left in the streets, before we had Government involvement/mandated medicine.
Also keep in mind the healthcare technology of the past.
At 7/7/12 03:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Every time somebody without insurance goes to the ER, we're paying for that as well. Any insurer or dr. will tell you that. This myth that somehow we DON'T already pay for the uninsured needs to go away.
Which only happens because the Government mandates it.
Once again: A problem created by a so-called Government "solution"
Not exactly "compete" necessarily...though certainly it could have encouraged competition surely.
Right, because also not having to pay your bills because the Government funds you is also certain fair.
Vs. how everyone is already paying for people who don't have insurance who use medical care and then don't pay for it because of the astronomical costs, or their own shortcomings...we're paying either way in the end.
Which is a problem created by the Government.
First administrators complain about doctors working in free clinics...
So the Government creates rules making it impossible to work out of state, thereby wiping out free clinics.
Because these free clinics have virtually disappeared, the poor need to go to an expensive hospital...
So the Government mandates that no one be turned away, thus shifting the cost to everyone else.
So now everyone else has to be burdened with the Cost...
The Government uses it as an excuse to mandate everyone become permanent customers to insurance corporations.
As has been accurately said before: The Government is an expert at breaking your leg, then giving you a crutch while saying "See? Without me you couldn't walk."
I don't remember any liberal ever calling it fair competition. But really everyone, it wouldn't be a Memorize post without an ad hominem against someone or a group really.
It's not my fault you people can't pick up a damn history book or read about WHY the fuck these things happen.
At 7/6/12 09:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Bush's problems only led to indefinite detnetion of people with no opportunity to hold the government to its case. They only nearly outed a large chunk of active CIA agents.
Even though Obama claims to hold the same power.
Reagan's problems only led to the murder of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians.
At least he had the sense to NOT get the military involved to such an extent as our current idiot president and last retarded one.
They were killed by a cartel who would have had weapons to kill them anyway. This sort of operation IS a run of the mill operation. You sell illicit material to a person hoping that in the transaction you can either build a case against the direct purchaser, bring the purchaser in and flip them, or just see if you can figure out where they go so you can assess a plan of action to take the system down, among numerous other reasons. It's nothing new.
Except that whole "not track the guns" thing that's sort of required.
Stop blindly hating Obama and see this for what it is, a simple political game to try and make Obama look bad on the eve on what looks to be a close election.
Who the fuck cares if it is?
It's no different than when Bush was President and the Republicans used the same excuse to protect his ass that the Democrats are using now.
But hey, at least no one was killed when all Bush did was fire a few attorneys.
And on top of that, no one was going after Obama until AFTER he consciously declared Executive Order.
The ones who need to be objective are the ones who can't see that this is nothing more than a very melodramatic political game.
Like your stupid ass for example.
At 7/2/12 11:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:At 7/2/12 11:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I for the life of me don't understand why you didn't go for a middle ground where it is similar to how Canada is , private health plans are here , I know I'm part of one.Obama pushed for a "public option" but the Republicans and other Conservative factions screamed "socialism" long and loud and this President put re-election ahead of the policy he publicly championed and caved and gave us the law we have now...so basically, he WANTED something like Canada, then caved into pressure and passed this instead...and still got called a socialist, lol.
Yeah, because it sure is fair when you're not only having to pay for your own healthcare, but everyone else's as well.
First, we're going to have the public "Option" compete with private insurance....
But while Private Insurance will have to be funded VOLUNTARILY, we're going to force everyone to pay for the Public "Option" regardless of whether or not they use it.
And this, everyone, is what liberals call "Fair Competition."
At 6/30/12 03:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Prove it. Come on. Back up your lip flapping with intelligence (for the first time).
Not until you prove it first.
After all, you're the one who made the accusation against me in the first place, all without any evidence.
lolz
Biden is a pretty intelligent guy. Perhaps you are dumb enough think getting a JD is easy.
Being forced out of running for the presidency due to PLAGIARISM.
Telling a guy in a wheel-chair to stand up.
Saying that the President has a "big stick" without realizing how funny that sounds.
Calling the word "JOBS" a 3-letter word.
Yeah, he's a real beacon of intelligence.
At 6/29/12 11:42 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Just like it's funny when those who usually defend anti-crime initiatives, no matter how far fetched, are up in arms over this run of the mill tactics, or how they completely abandon their anti-crime stance when gun control is involved.
Except that I've never taken such stances, unlike you.
My God, you make Biden look intelligent.
At 6/24/12 12:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 6/23/12 11:57 PM, Korriken wrote: *head scratch*As shallow as the post may have been, it's pretty much accurate.
General forum is that way ---->
Funny when the gun control crowd is defending a Government's sell of AR's to Mexican Cartels.
At 6/22/12 02:33 PM, Warforger wrote:
I know because right wingers always know how to fix an economy and left wingers always mess it up. I mean when Left wing legend George HW Bush left office the economy was in recession so when good ol' right wing legend Bill Clinton took over it got right back up. Oh and the Great Depression! The good ol' Right winger Hoover certainly fixed the economy there!
So did FDR!
Oh wait, he was elected 4 times and the economy didnt really recover until after his death....
Or Obama, where the average length of a recession is 1-2 years... oh wait, we're abou to go on to the 4th year with zero results.
I also like how you pretend Clinton (in '92) brought us out of a severe recession that didnt exist when he took office.
Just face it: Left wing economic policies always fail, regardless of whether or not they're carried out by left-wingers or right-wingers.
lolz
At 6/21/12 02:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Evidence please? I missed that one...or I'm only familiar with a different version of that. Also this does not compare with Hitler who had a very well organized, public, and state run program of genocide against any persons who offended him. The two situations have nothing in common beyond surface outrage.
Just because he does something less than Hitler or Stalin doesn't mean it's not comparable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0z-4T_ywco
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_ye ar_old_son/
