The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 51

No. Are you?



There is no free education (or healthcare) in Europe...or anywhere. That appears to be something you are incapable of understanding.

And for every one case of someone who was hindered by a health insurance provider, there are hundreds of cases of people who were helped by it.

A single-payer system is no better than what we have now. In reality, it will be much worse.

That's not surprising. Both a "public option" and Obamacare will destroy private insurance. The writing is already on the wall. When the mandate on pre-existing conditions takes hold, that's the end for private insurance. One can refuse to buy health insurance, pay a $700 fine, and then go buy insurance after he gets, say, brain cancer. Insurance companies won't be able to deny these people, and they will get out of the business.

Don't you think that's the whole plan?

Except that that hasn't happened anywhere it's been implemented. But just keep running with the FUD you've been fed by those who stand to profit less if changes are made. You guys are so easily manipulated it's sad.

I don't believe in an insurance mandate. Public option, and let the people who want a private ward, faster follow-ups and better choices opt in for the insurance option and private care. Win win win.

Well see because the 1% wall street evil greed something we're not going to stand for it inherited afghanistan or like um Goldman Sachs (liberal dog whistle for evil jews) real estate bailout obstructionist republicans which are evil oil production is up green economy.

Based on the shit you toss out here I don't think you're in any position to be spouting off about who's easily manipulated.

Oh? Really? What is the source of my 'shit'? The media? The left wing blogosphere?

No. How about independent reasoning? Which you guys who toss out ridiculous shit about the insurance industry failing don't seem to have much of.

Don't know for sure. But you sure seem to be certain that I am simply being manipulated by the insurance lobby and oil lobby. :roll eyes:



What about it? What does it matter if it's faulty?



Look, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we're not doing any or don't have much reasoning. We are just reasoning things out differently and coming to different conclusions.

You don't even see how arrogant you are here.

When someone arrives at a different conclusion than you do...that is in direct opposition to for thoughts is an ignorant, stupid, unreasoning, easily manipulated simpleton shilling for whatever special interest you think is controlling them.

Just are you "reason" differently when it comes to evolution. Bleh.

It helps to make assumptions when MJ and Jazzy recite word for word the Libertarian manifesto with a Mormon twist, without deviating an inch.

Likewise for SDW and the Republicans.

There's no one you can accuse me of parroting. I disagree with Huffpo half the time, and I don't watch Jon Stewart, and I don't read the 'Liberal newspapers' or watch 'Liberal television news'.

By far the closest you can get to my point of view is the PDA, which I have joined and I do follow and support, but I've only known about them for half a year or so. And I think Borowitz says some poignant things.

This is your form of "reasoning?"



Well good for you. I use my own reasoning to arrive at my own conclusions too (and I'm not Mormon and nor home-schooled as you previously assumed I was...though I am something of an autodidact on some subjects.) As I said before just because my reasoning is different from yours or I arrive at different conclusions doesn't mean I'm not using any or that I'm thoughtlessly parroting off some "manifesto" or talking points of someone else you disagree with. It is profoundly arrogant for you to assume this.

Please. All you know is that I am a libertarian and a Mormon. Just about everything else you "know" about me is based on assumptions.

I wasn't commenting on who you are. I was commenting on exactly what you say on these boards. Which is exactly toeing the line. You haven't shown the capability to think for yourself here. I'm waiting for it.

This is exactly the kind of demeaning character attack leftists throw at people when they disagree with their ideas.

You disagree with my beliefs, therefore, I don't think for myself. Your logic is astounding.

You guys don't get my point. Your beliefs toe the party line. That's the only observation.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

I've stated on numerous occasions that I currently don't associate myself with any political party, including the Libertarian party (if that is the party to which you are referring).

I believe there is a difference between Libertarians (upper-case "L") and libertarians (lower-case "L").

I only registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in my state's primary. Before that I was PND (Party Not Declared).

You really need to stop putting people into these groups you've concocted in your mind. It leads you to jump to erroneous conclusions about them. Treat people as individuals. It opens up a whole new world of learning opportunities.

Yes, in fact. I do.


Explain what a "public option" is in your view.




Let me get this straight: I hate all Muslims, gays, blacks and the poor and only get my information from my GOP handlers, but you're independent and without prejudice. Right?

I think most people want to help others and most would certainly help the proverbial blind man stepping into traffic.

I think the critical issue here is the compulsion*.

The question that arises here is what does society and liberty look like under a regime of compelling this behavior. Is it the morally right thing to do? It is the morally healthy thing to do? What does that society look like long term.

There are certain counter-intuitive things that ought to be considered in this debate:

1a. Despite lack of central (i.e., government) planning tons of things happen with great consistency, success and even precision.
1b. Whenever and wherever central (i.e., government) planning is implemented it leads to terrible shortages, inefficiencies and failures.

2a. Despite government mandated Samaritanism, people get taken care of, usually very well.
2b. Government mandated Samaritanism is very likely to lead to less morality in society, not more.

3a. Greater personal, political and economic liberty tends to lead to greater order and stability.
3b. Greater control and restriction of personal, political and economic freedom tends to lead to greater chaos and instability.

Obamacare (among other initiatives) shoots for the trifecta of 1b, 2b and 3b.

Unfortunately those who advocate 1b, 2b and 3b sort of have the positive language and short-term effects on their side. Word like "planning", "control" and "helping others" all seem to be positive words...and they are. But in the context we're speaking of they are double-edged (s)words.


*What's especially ironic about this compulsion is that advocacy for it typically comes from our leftist friends who, for a long time now, have been telling us that we can't legislate morality.

Obama argued against the individual mandate while campaigning in 2008. In fact, a federal judge used his own words against him in declaring it unconstitutional.

And Romney argued for it. Gee. The compartmentalization that goes on inside your head is just astounding.

No, he did not. He supported it at the state level. The refusal to understand federalism is just astounding.

Mother of sick child admits: "They'd be crazy to want to insure her," Walters says. "I mean, I wouldn't want to insure her if I was an insurance company." but, of course, still advocates forcing them to do just that.

Some things should not be done for profit. Some things should not be left to the market. Healthcare is one of those things. Thanks for demonstrating that, MJ.

That isn't even the point. This issue exists regardless of whether profit is involved. Resources in this world are finite. You need to learn to accept this...it is the adult thing to do.

Plus I hate little kids that get sick. You forget that.

Don't you eat babies, MJ1970?

I'm quite sure that BR is also not in any hurry to forgo the profits he earns in his own life. That profit is just fine.

If you haven't noticed, Obama has flip-flopped on a lot of his positions, turning from a Liberal perspective to a Conservative one to try to pander to the Republicans.

The individual Mandate was a Republican policy. Obama flip-flopped on his Liberal statements against it.

Oh, and I hope the Supreme Court rejects the individual mandate. It will put more pressure on the institution of a single payer public option if they do, even if to do so we need a constitutional amendment.

Well at least now you're talking about trying to follow the constitutional process.

Now!? How many times have I said we need a constitutional amendment to properly regulate gun ownership?

Don't you mean repeal the 2nd Amendment?

OK. So on two issues. Most of the crap you advocate for though do not fit under the specific and enumerated powers of the federal government and are certainly unconstitutional.

That's an interesting argument. It's clear that the federal government has very broad power to tax and create programs (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.). That's a longstanding power of the federal govt, and no constitutional amendments are necessary. But now conservatives are arguing that the federal govt does not have the power to require people to participate in private alternatives. So we have this:

Big govt tax-and-spend programs: Long-standing precedents.
Typical market-based conservative alternatives: Unconstitutional.

For example the conservative alternative to social security - requiring people to purchase private investment accounts - would be unconstitutional.

Of course conservatives are not thinking these things through, they're just stamping their feet and yelling "Obamacare is ILLEEEEGAL."