Pimpin' for Ron Paul

[Shaun__]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

No.

If anyone ever runs on a socialist platform such as nationalized medicine I would consider voting for them though. Watching loved ones waste away, because they do not have insurance and yours can not cover them, is a horrible thing. I know it may be Un-American not to tell people to fuck off I have mine already, but I am a radical that way.

Why do you hate the thought of people cooperating for a better world? The libertarians or anarchists can die on a bed of money if they want, but in the end that greed is the real yoke of slavery around their neck. The chains you choose are always the tightest.

 

[LeenaLiberty]

Bush (Cheney and D. Rumsfeld) finally found guilty of war crimes-
guess he will have to take another "vacationing spot" of his list... KUALA LUMPUR

http://tehrantimes.com/opinion/97842-bu ... war-crimes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014122226

 

[LeenaLiberty]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

No.

If anyone ever runs on a socialist platform such as nationalized medicine I would consider voting for them though. Watching loved ones waste away, because they do not have insurance and yours can not cover them, is a horrible thing. I know it may be Un-American not to tell people to fuck off I have mine already, but I am a radical that way.

Why do you hate the thought of people cooperating for a better world? The libertarians or anarchists can die on a bed of money if they want, but in the end that greed is the real yoke of slavery around their neck. The chains you choose are always the tightest.

Our nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence, correct? How does giving our government more power over our lives correlate to independence and the ideals set forth by the US Constitution?


The free market especially, and freedom of choice are the quintessential components of our nation’s and and an individual's soul- or that is how it was intended to be.

Any kind of "governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals" and private enterprises, in my opinion is counter to what our founders intended and negates freedom of choice.

The idea of having any kind of panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about our individual health care is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives.

The concept seems simply absurd and dangerous.


And by the way, and I hope you hear me correctly....
I DO NOT hate the thought of people cooperating for a better world? I would actualy like to encourage it. To even say that about me or people who share similar values as I do is perposterous...

Why is it that if I speak up about this kind of stuff, I end up being a vilian against a "better world..." That's is just not really fair.

All I want is the government out of my life, and to stop passing laws that limit individual freedom. And if you thinking I am being a little too hard I would be happy to spend a good deal of time discussing how the government is indeed doing this... (ad nasuem)


I think that creating a better world is a wonderful idea- I would NEVER be against something of the sort. The primary reason I am one here and other places, posting stuff, meeting with people, talking with people who share similar concerns, is for the mere hope that people will start seeing things from a different perspective and realize that our government is not helping-so we can get that BS out of lives and start living with freedom, choice AND RESPONSIBILITY (that is the thing about Freedom that many miss-Freedom Does IMPLY responsibility-you can thank Dr. Paul for that one).

It is up to us to wake up and realize that it is not our precious Gov't that will ever save us.
It is only ourselves... Individuals, who then can come together. I only want people to have more power in their own lives and more freedom to live lives of their choice, I want to see people simply happy and free- how is that hate?

I just don't believe that giving more power to an already corrupt government is the best way to help us achieve a "better world"
Sorry, just don't.

And by the way...
"The libertarians or anarchists can die on a bed of money if they want"
Great...
That sounds like a way to make for a better world.

 

[Nordling]

Would you trust the Koch Brothers or Mitt Romney to make those decisions rather than an ELECTED representative? I'm against dictatorship too, but like Shaun says, with a huge population, some regulation is required (police, firemen, emergency services, etc). Right now the country is getting closer to fascism with huge monopolistic corporations and banks regulating every strata of our lives, both personal and private.

I do not ever want to see an armed uprising--that is a last resort. With that in mind, the only way to control corrupt corporations is for the government to regulate them. The law is in the hands of the government and corporations were originally intended as temporary, legal constructs for the public good. Now we have a reactionary Supreme Court giving them more rights than real humans.

Taxation, btw, is ALLOWED by the Constitution.

 

[Shaun__]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

No.

If anyone ever runs on a socialist platform such as nationalized medicine I would consider voting for them though. Watching loved ones waste away, because they do not have insurance and yours can not cover them, is a horrible thing. I know it may be Un-American not to tell people to fuck off I have mine already, but I am a radical that way.

Why do you hate the thought of people cooperating for a better world? The libertarians or anarchists can die on a bed of money if they want, but in the end that greed is the real yoke of slavery around their neck. The chains you choose are always the tightest.

Our nation was founded on the Declaration of Independence, correct? How does giving our government more power over our lives correlate to independence and the ideals set forth by the US Constitution?

The founding fathers were a bunch of angry rich dudes, who did not like the status quo. They were not perfect, and saying that we can not go above or beyond what they wanted is a silly argument for a woman to make. If you want to go with what they thought then you need to give up your right to vote.

The free market especially, and freedom of choice are the quintessential components of our nation’s and and an individual's soul- or that is how it was intended to be.

Any kind of "governmental mandate for the behavior of individuals" and private enterprises, in my opinion is counter to what our founders intended and negates freedom of choice.

Again the founders intended you to be in the kitchen supervising the slaves when not making babies as was your duty.

The idea of having any kind of panel of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about our individual health care is perhaps the most personal and intimate intrusion into our lives.

The concept seems simply absurd and dangerous.

You know insurance companies have panels of bureaucrats determining fundamental decisions about your individual health care, right?

And by the way, and I hope you hear me correctly....
I DO NOT hate the thought of people cooperating for a better world? I would actualy like to encourage it. To even say that about me or people who share similar values as I do is perposterous...

Why is it that if I speak up about this kind of stuff, I end up being a vilian against a "better world..." That's is just not really fair.

All I want is the government out of my life, and to stop passing laws that limit individual freedom. And if you thinking I am being a little too hard I would be happy to spend a good deal of time discussing how the government is indeed doing this... (ad nasuem)

I dislike laws concerning morality, but I do oppose things like murder and theft. Everyone has a line drawn somewhere concerning how much meddling is enough.

I think that creating a better world is a wonderful idea- I would NEVER be against something of the sort. The primary reason I am one here and other places, posting stuff, meeting with people, talking with people who share similar concerns, is for the mere hope that people will start seeing things from a different perspective and realize that our government is not helping-so we can get that BS out of lives and start living with freedom, choice AND RESPONSIBILITY (that is the thing about Freedom that many miss-Freedom Does IMPLY responsibility-you can thank Dr. Paul for that one).

Have you ever seen the places in the world with no functioning government? They suck ass! Our gov needs to be less corrupt, but it could be way worse.

It is up to us to wake up and realize that it is not our precious Gov't that will ever save us.
It is only ourselves... Individuals, who then can come together. I only want people to have more power in their own lives and more freedom to live lives of their choice, I want to see people simply happy and free- how is that hate?

Weak people need protection, and the government provides that to them. It is easy for strong people to give up protections they do not need. I do not need public schools or food stamps, and saying we should get rid of both would not harm me directly.

I just don't believe that giving more power to an already corrupt government is the best way to help us achieve a "better world"
Sorry, just don't.

What do you want in its place then? It is easy to criticize, but I have never heard what people plan to replace it with.

And by the way...
"The libertarians or anarchists can die on a bed of money if they want"
Great...
That sounds like a way to make for a better world.

I would trade dying on a bed of money for the chance to die with a smile wrinkled face.

 

[LeenaLiberty]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Well then, Dear Shaun, before I reply in complete,

What would be your plans then to make for a "better world?" and what would a "better world" even look like to you?

 

[Nordling]

Two words: "Better Education."

A good deal of the reason our government is corrupt is a lack of education for our electorate. If people were taught critical thinking, they'd not vote on the basis of hate-filled propaganda broadcast on the Glass Teat 24/7.

A scoundrel like Scott Walker may stay in office because the Kochs and others are dumping tens of millions into his election coffers. Those monies will be used for TV advertising, push polling on the telephone system and all manner of other things having nothing to do with the issues.

If people were educated, they'd not vote on the basis of that garbage.

 

[Shaun__]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Well then, Dear Shaun, before I reply in complete,

What would be your plans then to make for a "better world?" and what would a "better world" even look like to you?

I would like a world with no war, and hatred for those who are different. My plans to bring this about are to be nice to people and try to persuade them when possible to do the same. I will also vote for and support people with a similar view point. A major problem with this goal is the huge amount of money our government spends on killing stuff. Just ending it would devastate our economy and possibly lead to war, so this industry would have to be replaced with something else. I would like it to be medicine.

I would also like nationalized medicine, because I do not want poor people to die. I realize this would make it more difficult for me to get medical help myself due to more people being in the system. I am willing to make that sacrifice. My plans to bring this about are to vote for and support people with a similar view point.

I feel the drug wars are pointless and increase misery in poorer countries. I would like them ended. My plans to bring this about are to vote for and support people with a similar view point.

 

[Poker_Babe]

 

[LeenaLiberty]

I would like a world with no war, and hatred for those who are different. My plans to bring this about are to be nice to people and try to persuade them when possible to do the same. I will also vote for and support people with a similar view point. A major problem with this goal is the huge amount of money our government spends on killing stuff. Just ending it would devastate our economy and possibly lead to war, so this industry would have to be replaced with something else. I would like it to be medicine.

I would also like nationalized medicine, because I do not want poor people to die. I realize this would make it more difficult for me to get medical help myself due to more people being in the system. I am willing to make that sacrifice. My plans to bring this about are to vote for and support people with a similar view point.

I feel the drug wars are pointless and increase misery in poorer countries. I would like them ended. My plans to bring this about are to vote for and support people with a similar view point.

Shaun,I agree, a world free of war and intolerance would be ideal and lovely. Unfortunately, government will never allow for this world because of many fundamental problems that government holds. Hopefully, after explaining these problems you may actually advocate a more achievable solution than just voting and supporting more people in power.

First, things like nationalized medicine and central economic planning always fails the people because of something called the knowledge problem, which FA Hayek won the nobel peace prize in economics for pointing this out. Basically the knowledge problem follows like this: No central organizing force can ever make the right decisions because of its lack of understanding of many things like the subjective nature of people's values, their motives, their desires, basically nowhere is the utilization of knowledge complete because people can't plan for everything for everybody at every stage of production.

Like in your case, medicine, applying massive standardized medicine (which is ever present in things like Obamacare) the ability to actually maximize care is greatly diminished based on this philosophy.

For instance, how are resources allocated?
What hospitals get the needed personnel?
What medical procedures are practiced, and when? Etc.
Please read Hayek for more understanding.

So what is the solution to health care? How about introducing the thing that Hayek said was the only thing with enough information to make the right calculations -- the market. Look at cosmetic surgery in the past thirty years. It is largely an elective surgery free of government oversight and insurance interference, but is often very dangerous and very complicated. What do we have? Through competition and mutual exchange we have a drastic reduction in price and an elevated standard of care. Why can't this apply to cancer treatment or diabetes?

I am wondering if you know that insurance companies actually lobby the government to pass laws that prevent doctors and hospitals from negotiating with patients on prices for their care.??? Big pharma routinely lobbies government to pass laws to criminalize foreign, cheaper drugs and prevents them from being sold. These regualtions drive up the costs of care forcing everyone into the insurance/government medical gulag system. Ron Paul was a doctor for 30 years, he can tell you how negotiation and sliding scales provided better cheaper medical care when he practiced medicine and no one was turned away to die.

Also-on a mere side note, national medical care is all about treating symptoms. Why are people poor and sick in the first place? Perhaps it would possibly more fruitfull to invest our efforts investigating and eliminated the systemic causes of poverty and disease and possibly preventing them in the first place, so the burden of treating such individuals does not fall on the shoulders of the government or the people.

But back to my main point, which brings us to the second big problem with government. You say you have a disdain for war but hold government in admiration. These two ideas are contradictory because government is VIOLENT FORCE. It is the only thing in life with a monopoly on violence. This distinctive feature of coercion is different than every other body in society, others persuade, the government compels. It is a gun at your head in a metaphorical semse. Even if you wanted to enact a government program to feed, house and clothe every poor person in America, that program would use the threat of violence to achieve its ends through taxation, eminent domain and many other violent means.

So if you really want to live in a world free from war, than I suggest you start advocating for one built on the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle simply means that the use of coercion is never moral or should be tolerated. Rather a society that uses voluntary, mutual exchange can be more peaceful and more prosperous than we have ever dreamed.

You like socialism, than fine, go voluntarily join a commune with like minded people or support and join a worker owned collective, but please do not advocate that the problem is we just don't have the right people holding a gun to our heads (one again, metaphorically speaking-to some degree). I am so sick of hearing that. Government is force. Period.

Also, if you are bored and need some reading material this weekend, may I suggest more material by Friederick Hayek:
The Road to Serfdom
I have kindly provided a copy of the abridged version as a starter.
http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/Econ/RoadtoSerfdom_ReadersDigest_and_Cartoon_Versions.pdf

 

[Shaun__]

Shaun,I agree, a world free of war and intolerance would be ideal and lovely. Unfortunately, government will never allow for this world because of many fundamental problems that government holds. Hopefully, after explaining these problems you may actually advocate a more achievable solution than just voting and supporting more people in power.

First, things like nationalized medicine and central economic planning always fails the people because of something called the knowledge problem, which FA Hayek won the nobel peace prize in economics for pointing this out. Basically the knowledge problem follows like this: No central organizing force can ever make the right decisions because of its lack of understanding of many things like the subjective nature of people's values, their motives, their desires, basically nowhere is the utilization of knowledge complete because people can't plan for everything for everybody at every stage of production.

Like in your case, medicine, applying massive standardized medicine (which is ever present in things like Obamacare) the ability to actually maximize care is greatly diminished based on this philosophy.

For instance, how are resources allocated?
What hospitals get the needed personnel?
What medical procedures are practiced, and when? Etc.
Please read Hayek for more understanding.

So what is the solution to health care? How about introducing the thing that Hayek said was the only thing with enough information to make the right calculations -- the market. Look at cosmetic surgery in the past thirty years. It is largely an elective surgery free of government oversight and insurance interference, but is often very dangerous and very complicated. What do we have? Through competition and mutual exchange we have a drastic reduction in price and an elevated standard of care. Why can't this apply to cancer treatment or diabetes?

Because the free market is driven by money not the desire to relive human suffering. Thankfully it is also under the control of the government which you seem to hold in such disdain. This is what prevents people from being murdered by charlatans, until the numbers grow so large the general populace notices.

This is a story about experimentation in the market driven cosmetic surgery field if you are interested, sadly the government prematurely ended this experiment.

I am wondering if you know that insurance companies actually lobby the government to pass laws that prevent doctors and hospitals from negotiating with patients on prices for their care.??? Big pharma routinely lobbies government to pass laws to criminalize foreign, cheaper drugs and prevents them from being sold. These regualtions drive up the costs of care forcing everyone into the insurance/government medical gulag system. Ron Paul was a doctor for 30 years, he can tell you how negotiation and sliding scales provided better cheaper medical care when he practiced medicine and no one was turned away to die.

I do not see what insurance companies have to do with me. I see them as nothing more than middle men who take but give nothing back in return. I told you I would socialize things. Like the road system you would have the option of paying to use private infrastructure if you wished of course.

As to being denied, have you ever gone to a specialist and asked him to help you out of the goodness of his heart? If you are not about to die, you will not receive aid in most cases.

Also-on a mere side note, national medical care is all about treating symptoms. Why are people poor and sick in the first place? Perhaps it would possibly more fruitfull to invest our efforts investigating and eliminated the systemic causes of poverty and disease and possibly preventing them in the first place, so the burden of treating such individuals does not fall on the shoulders of the government or the people.

I think you just said you want to make everyone rich or middle class. That is in not possible in any way, shape, or form.

But back to my main point, which brings us to the second big problem with government. You say you have a disdain for war but hold government in admiration. These two ideas are contradictory because government is VIOLENT FORCE. It is the only thing in life with a monopoly on violence. This distinctive feature of coercion is different than every other body in society, others persuade, the government compels. It is a gun at your head in a metaphorical semse. Even if you wanted to enact a government program to feed, house and clothe every poor person in America, that program would use the threat of violence to achieve its ends through taxation, eminent domain and many other violent means.

If you do not like it you are free to renounce your citizenship and leave.

So if you really want to live in a world free from war, than I suggest you start advocating for one built on the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle simply means that the use of coercion is never moral or should be tolerated. Rather a society that uses voluntary, mutual exchange can be more peaceful and more prosperous than we have ever dreamed.

Sounds like you want to live in a socialist commune.

You like socialism, than fine, go voluntarily join a commune with like minded people or support and join a worker owned collective, but please do not advocate that the problem is we just don't have the right people holding a gun to our heads (one again, metaphorically speaking-to some degree). I am so sick of hearing that. Government is force. Period.

I live in America, and America is a representative republic so I do not have to go anywhere. I just have to convince a majority of people to my way of thinking, in the correct areas, and I win.

 

[LeenaLiberty]

Shaun,I agree, a world free of war and intolerance would be ideal and lovely. Unfortunately, government will never allow for this world because of many fundamental problems that government holds. Hopefully, after explaining these problems you may actually advocate a more achievable solution than just voting and supporting more people in power.

First, things like nationalized medicine and central economic planning always fails the people because of something called the knowledge problem, which FA Hayek won the nobel peace prize in economics for pointing this out. Basically the knowledge problem follows like this: No central organizing force can ever make the right decisions because of its lack of understanding of many things like the subjective nature of people's values, their motives, their desires, basically nowhere is the utilization of knowledge complete because people can't plan for everything for everybody at every stage of production.

Like in your case, medicine, applying massive standardized medicine (which is ever present in things like Obamacare) the ability to actually maximize care is greatly diminished based on this philosophy.

For instance, how are resources allocated?
What hospitals get the needed personnel?
What medical procedures are practiced, and when? Etc.
Please read Hayek for more understanding.

So what is the solution to health care? How about introducing the thing that Hayek said was the only thing with enough information to make the right calculations -- the market. Look at cosmetic surgery in the past thirty years. It is largely an elective surgery free of government oversight and insurance interference, but is often very dangerous and very complicated. What do we have? Through competition and mutual exchange we have a drastic reduction in price and an elevated standard of care. Why can't this apply to cancer treatment or diabetes?

Because the free market is driven by money not the desire to relive human suffering. Thankfully it is also under the control of the government which you seem to hold in such disdain. This is what prevents people from being murdered by charlatans, until the numbers grow so large the general populace notices.

This is a story about experimentation in the market driven cosmetic surgery field if you are interested, sadly the government prematurely ended this experiment.

I am wondering if you know that insurance companies actually lobby the government to pass laws that prevent doctors and hospitals from negotiating with patients on prices for their care.??? Big pharma routinely lobbies government to pass laws to criminalize foreign, cheaper drugs and prevents them from being sold. These regualtions drive up the costs of care forcing everyone into the insurance/government medical gulag system. Ron Paul was a doctor for 30 years, he can tell you how negotiation and sliding scales provided better cheaper medical care when he practiced medicine and no one was turned away to die.

I do not see what insurance companies have to do with me. I see them as nothing more than middle men who take but give nothing back in return. I told you I would socialize things. Like the road system you would have the option of paying to use private infrastructure if you wished of course.

As to being denied, have you ever gone to a specialist and asked him to help you out of the goodness of his heart? If you are not about to die, you will not receive aid in most cases.

Also-on a mere side note, national medical care is all about treating symptoms. Why are people poor and sick in the first place? Perhaps it would possibly more fruitfull to invest our efforts investigating and eliminated the systemic causes of poverty and disease and possibly preventing them in the first place, so the burden of treating such individuals does not fall on the shoulders of the government or the people.

I think you just said you want to make everyone rich or middle class. That is in not possible in any way, shape, or form.

But back to my main point, which brings us to the second big problem with government. You say you have a disdain for war but hold government in admiration. These two ideas are contradictory because government is VIOLENT FORCE. It is the only thing in life with a monopoly on violence. This distinctive feature of coercion is different than every other body in society, others persuade, the government compels. It is a gun at your head in a metaphorical semse. Even if you wanted to enact a government program to feed, house and clothe every poor person in America, that program would use the threat of violence to achieve its ends through taxation, eminent domain and many other violent means.

If you do not like it you are free to renounce your citizenship and leave.

So if you really want to live in a world free from war, than I suggest you start advocating for one built on the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle simply means that the use of coercion is never moral or should be tolerated. Rather a society that uses voluntary, mutual exchange can be more peaceful and more prosperous than we have ever dreamed.

Sounds like you want to live in a socialist commune.

You like socialism, than fine, go voluntarily join a commune with like minded people or support and join a worker owned collective, but please do not advocate that the problem is we just don't have the right people holding a gun to our heads (one again, metaphorically speaking-to some degree). I am so sick of hearing that. Government is force. Period.

I live in America, and America is a representative republic so I do not have to go anywhere. I just have to convince a majority of people to my way of thinking, in the correct areas, and I win.

Whatever, at this point, it is absolutely pointless for me to be discussing this with you.
Best wishes on your quest for a "better world."

I doubt you will even look into the Non-Agression Principles or even read Road to Serfdom, if for any reason to provide a logic-driven response.

 

[Shaun__]

Whatever, at this point, it is absolutely pointless for me to be discussing this with you.
Best wishes on your quest for a "better world."

I doubt you will even look into the Non-Agression Principles or even read Road to Serfdom, if for any reason to provide a logic-driven response.

I told you there are places on this planet with no functioning government. I do not see anybody trying to go to them in droves. People like all the things a functioning government gives them, but when it is time to pay the bill they start complaining.

As to reasoned arguments, all you do is throw other peoples words at me. Where is your proof, that what I want is wrong?

 

[LeenaLiberty]

Anyone, including my twelve year old nephew, can post up a couple crappy charts (without even citing the source or making an attempt to interpret and analyze the data)......

For instance, Sweden, (since many who share your ideas typically site Sweden in this argument) one of the top countries in your little chart, has substantially less people to take care of in comparison to the United States. They also have more natural resources and healthier life styles, thus having a lower need for healthcare...
I guarantee if you look at each country and interpret it using common sense, and while also looking at the other many variables involved, you will see that the statistics you site are pointless and likely not valid.

"all you do is throw other peoples words at me."
All you do is throw emotionally based retorts at me rather then using common sense or logic, or provide any material to bases arguments on.

Like I said I am done discussing this with you. It is pointless.

I don't feel like sitting on my ass, having an endless argument online with some guy who favors socialism, is the best use of my time and doesn't really do much to help the main issue we are discussing. Seems like you guys waste more time going around in circles with your petty arguments than actually doing something. Perhaps this is why things don't seem to change much or get accomplished.

 

[Shaun__]

Anyone, including my twelve year old nephew, can post up a couple crappy charts (without even citing the source or making an attempt to interpret and analyze the data)......

For instance, Sweden, (since many who share your ideas typically site Sweden in this argument) one of the top countries in your little chart, has substantially less people to take care of in comparison to the United States. They also have more natural resources and healthier life styles, thus having a lower need for healthcare...
I guarantee if you look at each country and interpret it using common sense, and while also looking at the other many variables involved, you will see that the statistics you site are pointless and likely not valid.

"all you do is throw other peoples words at me."
All you do is throw emotionally based retorts at me rather then using common sense or logic, or provide any material to bases arguments on.

Like I said I am done discussing this with you. It is pointless.

I don't feel like sitting on my ass, having an endless argument online with some guy who favors socialism, is the best use of my time and doesn't really do much to help the main issue we are discussing. Seems like you guys waste more time going around in circles with your petty arguments than actually doing something. Perhaps this is why things don't seem to change much or get accomplished.

So your common sense tells you the way we do it now is better than all those other countries, who all spend less and get better results? You are letting your personal beliefs color your thoughts. I was honest and admitted my personal health care is better without all those poor people having access to regular care.


This chart is spending per capita. Does your common sense tell you anything about it, especially when you compare it to the other two I posted.

 

[Poker_Babe]

Anyone, including my twelve year old nephew, can post up a couple crappy charts (without even citing the source or making an attempt to interpret and analyze the data)......

For instance, Sweden, (since many who share your ideas typically site Sweden in this argument) one of the top countries in your little chart, has substantially less people to take care of in comparison to the United States. They also have more natural resources and healthier life styles, thus having a lower need for healthcare...
I guarantee if you look at each country and interpret it using common sense, and while also looking at the other many variables involved, you will see that the statistics you site are pointless and likely not valid.

"all you do is throw other peoples words at me."
All you do is throw emotionally based retorts at me rather then using common sense or logic, or provide any material to bases arguments on.

Like I said I am done discussing this with you. It is pointless.

I don't feel like sitting on my ass, having an endless argument online with some guy who favors socialism, is the best use of my time and doesn't really do much to help the main issue we are discussing. Seems like you guys waste more time going around in circles with your petty arguments than actually doing something. Perhaps this is why things don't seem to change much or get accomplished.

I blame propaganda movies like John Q for all emotionally base arguments for socialized health care.
My grandmother was telling me that back when she was a kid, if u had something wrong, u went to see the doctor, and u paid ur bill. Simple as that. You didn't need insurance or socialized healthcare. You know people were in a depression back then too. I'm not saying that I like the way the healthcare system is now... but I do think it's all been set up by design for us to hate the system that's in place, that way the people demand a new system which will end up being a thousand times worse.
Uh oh, here goes crazy old conspiracy theorist Poker chick again, with all her kooky and paranoid ideas... I know, I know.

 

[Bocefish]

Let's not forget how this all started...



I have a feeling the SCOTUS will rule Obamacare unconstitutional anyway.

 

[Nordling]

Ha! No, your memory is too shallow. In the US, This is how it all started:

In the Western World, THIS is how it all started:

 

[Bocefish]

Ha! No, your memory is too shallow. In the US, This is how it all started:

In the Western World, THIS is how it all started:

My memory is too shallow? This isn't a history lesson, but I'll refrain from making jackass comments about your memory. My post was about Obamacare which the SCOTUS is leaning toward ruling unconstitutional.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lawyer-law-verrilli-800/

Top Obama lawyer admits 'Obamacare' is unconstitutional?

The top lawyer for the Obama administration stated that the President's groundbreaking health care plan may have been a little over ambitious.

US Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli during the Supreme Court hearings on the health care reform also known as "Obamacare" has agreed that the president might have made an error mandating all Americans to purchase health insurance.

On Wednesday the two year old law which was an attempt by the Obama administration to overhaul of the US healthcare system was on the chopping block.

Verrilli was slammed by critics for his lousy appearance on Tuesday before the Supreme Court when he practically begged with the justices to keep “Obamacare.”

“Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't, but this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it,” Verrilli said referring to the congressmen's decision to pass the law.
According to Verrilli, the court should consider the elected leaders efforts to help millions of uninsured Americans.

“Congress struggled with the issue of how to deal with this profound problem of 40 million people without health care for many years, and it made a judgment, and its judgment is one that is, I think, in conformity with lots of experts thought, was the best complex of options to handle this problem,” Verrilli said.

The hearing which lasted three days put nine Justices in the position to rule on whether the healthcare renovation would survive.

Many critics believe Obama’s groundbreaking plan is in severe jeopardy due to the fact that five of the justices involved in the hearings were opposed the plan from the beginning.
On the last day of the hearing the justices addressed two key issues.
The justices wanted to know whether the law could stand if the core requisite that most Americans must acquire insurance or face a fine is struck down, they also questioned the legitimacy of the growing state-federal Medicaid healthcare program.

The law, which is the latest attempt in 50 years to provide health insurance to the uninsured and slow down soaring medical costs to an already $2.6 trillion US healthcare system, will be simmering in deliberation for three months and a ruling is expected in late June.
Many critics believe that Verrilli cries are an attempt at a political ploy for Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign and a failed healthcare plan would only arm the Republican party with more mud to sling in political ads.

According to Reuters, 26 of the 50 states called the law in court. The lawyer who represented the case Paul Clement said, “I would respectfully suggest that it’s a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not.”

The mandate which gives Americans until 2014 to obtain healthcare insurance hangs on the balance of the justices who are reviewing the law.

 

[Nordling]

Your first statement was "this is how it all started," and then showed a photo of Nancy Pelosi for unknown reasons, but I assumed you were talking about universal health care, which "Obamacare" is simply the current version of that which we now have as law. Your ending statement that HAPPENED to mention the actual term "Obamacare" in no way showed that was "what I was posting about."

My point is, that Universal Health Care is an idea that goes back to the late 19th century, and in fact has continued in Germany with various modifications since Bismarck first put it into place. a couple decades later, Teddy Roosevelt attempted the same ideas, but was not successful. What is odd to me, is that Bismarck was a conservative and Roosevelt a Republican, and yet now right wingers are accusing the left of all manner of evil with a very WEAKENED version of national health care; in fact it's a plan that not so long ago, the right were claiming as their own.

Personally, the biggest problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't go far enough.

And I still wonder what Nancy Pelosi has to do with the discussion, as she was simply attempting to get the Democrat's bill passed, which as majority leader at the time was her job. She in no way "started all this"

 

[Shaun__]

The individual mandate is a Republic ideal, and no matter how many childlike tantrums they throw, this will never change. It must have been a terrible feeling when Obama started supporting this thing they like, forcing them to flip flop on the issue.


Republican bills with mandates in them for health insurance.

Nov. 20, 1993 Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743)

"Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

Nov. 23, 1993 Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743)

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."

Jan. 18, 2007 Healthy Americans Act (SB 334)

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

Feb. 5, 2009 Healthy Americans Act (SB 391)

Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

 

[Bocefish]

I still wonder what Nancy Pelosi has to do with the discussion, as she was simply attempting to get the Democrat's bill passed, which as majority leader at the time was her job. She in no way "started all this"

Exactly! She was was the genius that initiated they pass the bill so we can see what's in it. That's exactly the kind of leadership the American public wants, right?. :lol:



Not only does the majority of the voting public want Obamacare repealed, even Obama's former doctor blasts Obamacare!

President Obama's former doctor claims that the president lacks passion, feeling and humanity
by Jarrett Stepman05/11/2012

In a revealing new book, The Amateur, author Edward Klein interviews President Barack Obama’s physician, Dr. David Scheiner, MD, who blasts the president’s health care plan and says that President Obama has an “academic detachment” that he could never break through.

The doctor fears that if the health care plan is “the failure” he believes it will be, because of runaway costs and other problems, then any health reform will be set back for years to come.

These are only a few of many reveals in Klein’s book, which makes the case that President Obama is not the political machine that people fear, but an amateur with a messianic complex who is completely out of his depth.

In an exclusive preview of The Amateur by Human Events, Obama’s longtime physician reveals the lack of humanity in Obama’s character and carelessness with which he enacted the entirely politicized health insurance reform, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often called ObamaCare.

Scheiner said that he believes the president miscalculated politically and that the health reform is ultimately doomed to fail. Worse, Scheiner doubts the character of a man who holds the highest and most influential office in America: “I think there is too much of the University of Chicago in him. By which I mean he’s academic, lacks passion and feeling, and doesn’t have the sense of humanity that I expected.”

The author, Klein, later in the book, compares Obama’s personality to early the 20th Century progressive president, Woodrow Wilson. By quoting the historian Forrest McDonald, who called Wilson’s perception of himself, “little short of Messianic,” Klein says that McDonald’s description of Wilson “fits Obama to a T.”

The Amateur is set to be released Tuesday, May 15. It is published by Regnery Publishing, owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns Human Events.

In the chapter titled, “Hollow at the Core,” Obama’s former physician, who is a liberal, blasts the president for being uncaring, and perhaps worse, incompetent.

“He has no cost control. There would be no effective cost control,” said Scheiner. “The [Congressional Budget Office] said it’s going to be incredibly expensive… and the thing that I’m incredibly worried about is, if it is a failure that I think it will be, then health reform will be set back a long, long time.”

Scheiner said that the Obama administration neglected the advice of real physicians and instead decided to let political operatives craft Obama’s signature health care law. People like Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, were the kinds of medical people that the White House consulted.

“Ezekiel is a medical oncologist, not a general physician,” said Scheiner.

The point that Scheiner was trying to make is that President Obama lacks the ability to understand the critical role of the doctor to patient interaction just as he fails to connect to people personally.

“My main objection to Barack Obama is that he is a great speaker and a lousy communicator. He isn’t getting his message across to people. He isn’t showing that he really cares. To this day he hasn’t communicated with members of Congress.”

Scheiner and other interviewees in The Amateur believe that President Obama has been a failure as a president, that he has failed to live up to the hype and has left a trail of betrayals in his wake.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51433

Even Bill Clinton said regarding Obama, “he's an amateur, doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... z1vQYVGWQ9

 

[Shaun__]

Not only does the majority of the voting public want Obamacare repealed, even Obama's former doctor blasts Obamacare!

I found a different survey that say otherwise. Link My survey like yours means nothing however. Also, when did we elect Obama's former doctor to office? I ask since you seem to think his opinion is so important for some reason, I assume he is a valued politician or member of society of some sort.

Scheiner and other interviewees in The Amateur believe that President Obama has been a failure as a president, that he has failed to live up to the hype and has left a trail of betrayals in his wake.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51433

Even Bill Clinton said regarding Obama, “he's an amateur, doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/b ... z1vQYVGWQ9

You know that unauthorized biographies are not the most trustworthy source of information? Both Clintons refute the claims made by the author, and they are considered a more reliable source of what they think than scummy authors.

 

[Bocefish]

Also, when did we elect Obama's former doctor to office? I ask since you seem to think his opinion is so important for some reason, I assume he is a valued politician or member of society of some sort.

Nobody said was elected to office. I value his opinion, as do many others, because he actually works prominently in the Health Care profession and has intimate knowledge of Obama and how Obamacare was crafted far more than you or I do.

I'm done debating this, neither of us will sway one another so it's basically a pointless waste of time. I'm sure others would join in if they knew the topic changed to health care, but I'm done with the whole political arguing nonsense.

FWIW, my polling source is http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

 

[LeenaLiberty]

I would just like people to learn more about voluntaryism, the philosophy that all forms of human association should be voluntary (this is my main goal rather than to have meaningless arguments). This moral principle is called the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggressive force or coercion.

Once again, because government is force, it violates the non-aggression principle.

If one doesn't agree with this philosophy, that is fine... It is nice to at least know about it though/





Hey Poker Babe.... Our boyfriend again :hello2:
Adam Kokesh explains the Non-Aggression Principle (to a confused statist)

Is this so hard to understand....



Here are some links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
http://voluntaryist.com
http://Fr33Agents.com/ join to network with voluntaryists.

 

[Shaun__]

Many late 20th and early 21st Century voluntaryists based their thinking upon the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation." "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."[2]

I am not going to argue about this, but I honestly fail to see how you expect to have a nice country with no courts, police, or publicly funded infrastructure. I think it would look like one of the militia or tribal run areas in the Middle East or Africa. I do not think those are nice places to live.


We may just have to agree to disagree on this thing.

 

[LeenaLiberty]

We may just have to agree to disagree on this thing.

Shaun, with all due respect, I will agree with you on this one.

 

[Bocefish]

 

[LeenaLiberty]

I think what we all need is a trip to the Great Mother Vagina

 

[Nordling]

I think one of the funniest stories in recent news was the "divorce" of Congressman Paul Ryan and novelist Ayn Rand. The story goes that Ryan was obsessed with Rand and her philosophy, and in fact insisted that his staffer's read Atlas Shrugged and other works by the late author. In one of the worst cases of "non-vetting" in recent history, it seems that fundamentalist Christian Ryan, had never looked into the author herself as a human.

Ayn Rand was well-known as an atheist (which is fine with me, since I am too), but apparently that was too much for Ryan who when he was informed of this publicly, suddenly made a big ceremony of throwing poor, dead Ayn under the bus.



* Another interesting footnote: In Ayn Rand's later life, she used both Social Security and Medicare