Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Dave Kos wrote:
I've agreed, why can't you?
Dave,
If I don't agree, we have no deal, no compromise. But I will respectfully agree to disagree with your definition of compromise.
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Why should we expect compromise? We have elected a bunch of self serving politicians/ attorneys ( pond scum) that have experience in getting elected and not much else other than being out of touch with reality and what happens in the real day to day world.
As a result, we should expect a plethora of laws and increased infringement of our personal freedoms that will be financed by the hard working middle class.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Dave Kos wrote:
You are right, we don't have compromise. Because you refuse to compromise.
Dave,
I can only assume you haven't dealt much in buying or selling a house.
To paraphrase:
"I offered you $100,000 for your $200,000 house. You refuse to compromise"
Yes, and I would be a fool to compromise on your terms.
Like I say, want to buy my bridge? I will agree to a price. What's not to like?
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
Why should we expect compromise? We have elected a bunch of self serving politicians/ attorneys ( pond scum) that have experience in getting elected and not much else other than being out of touch with reality and what happens in the real day to day world.
As a result, we should expect a plethora of laws and increased infringement of our personal freedoms that will be financed by the hard working middle class.
+11111
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
jghedge wrote:
"Because making up my own definitions is less embarrassing than admitting to being wrong."
I have been corrected on this thread and humbly acknowleged my mistakes.
I have linked the Oxford dictionary definition of the word compromise twice. I am seeking the truth.
I'm not interested in a partisan pissing match.
Intractable partisanship is what is wrong with the Imperial city of Washington DC, where at least 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America surround it. Both parties are to blame. Both parties are corrupt.
Believe what you want to believe. Almost seems religious to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
No I am commending him for taking care of the ones that fill his coffers.
PS It is OK to engage is shady political behavior if it is for the common good lol
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Unfortunately, this is how Republicans compromise
Curt
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
It's how the Democrats compromised, too, in the Affordable [sic] Care Act. The Democrats compromised among themselves concerning things like a public option. The corporations that paid for the Obama election and that of the Democratic Congress didn't want a public option, and enough Democratic legislators were sufficiently concerned to oppose including one. There was no compromise made to gain Republican votes.
It's still how they "compromise." The ACA has problems. Have the Democrats made any concrete proposals to fix them, or even made an offer to do so? The only "fixes" have been the executive branch's enforcement abatement -- a concept frightening in its implications for separation of powers.
While I acknowledge -- and remain firmly opposed to -- the Tea Party's demand for inflexibility, they may end up looking like political geniuses yet if the ACA rollout continues in its disastrous ways and the Democrats take no responsibility for the problems. They already face a dilemma; if they take legislative action to fix problems, they open themselves up to the criticism that they, rather than the Republicans, insisted on keeping the government partially shut down solely to protect an Act they knew was deeply flawed.
How about we quit the partisan game playing, admit the problems, and just maybe do something about fixing them?
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Can you name a single Republicans that even hinted that they would vote in favor of ACA if certain changes were made?
Yes. Olympia Snowe after the public option was off the table. I'm sure there would have been many others if the Democratic leadership made the slightest effort to enact legislation with bipartisan support, but I'll ask you the complementary question. What Democrat hinted that he or she was willing to consider changes to acquire Republican votes?
John
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
What Democrat hinted that he or she was willing to consider changes to acquire Republican votes?
Almost all of them.
They didn't just hint. They compromised right out of the gate.
That's why the ACA is modeled after the Republican/Romneycare plan and not single payer.
The Democrats made a HUGE compromise from the beginning.
I think you understand this John. You are abusing the false equivalence argument.
BINGO !!
Curt
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.
Implementation is going well....right?
I am so excited for this Obamacare.
I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.
This is awesome !
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.
Implementation is going well....right?
I am so excited for this Obamacare.
I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.
This is awesome !
I know. It's a horribly flawed idea, concocted by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. We should scrap it immediately and follow the lead of every other industrialized country in the world, by putting a single-payer healthcare system in place.
Curt
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
Good luck with that.
Looking forward to the smooth roll out and great care for a reasonable price.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Good luck with that.
Correct. Because of Republicans.
Curt
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
^^^ That is the problem with this whole Obamacare thing. Republicans, Democrats blah blah blah.
Obamacare is failing because of ( insert political party name)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I'm with neither party, so this response is not "partisan." I will merely float two data points first hand:
1) One of my company's partners used to purchase his own insurance. Low deductible and low copay, it was still cheap (barely over $100 per month) because of his age, health, and habits. That policy recently went away, and now he must purchase something on the "exchange" (or pay an ever increasing fine to get nothing). He's looked on the exchange, and even the "gold" plan is nothing CLOSE to as good as what he was buying on his own. And his cost for the privilege of very inferior insurance is (wait for it....): double the price per month.
2) My company completely pays for the health insurance of all of its employees. I mean 100% of the cost of our small group plan, and we buy great insurance through Anthem. Again, low deductible and low copay. Our small group rate is affordable, and we consider 100%-paid coverage one of the "thanks yous" we can give to our employees. Sometime in 2014 either Anthem is planning to drop these small group policies or increase the price by 40%-60%. So, we're in limbo, and either option takes us out of our previous game. Either way, health care is going to cost our employees SIGNIFICANTLY more! I mean a LOT more, because we simply will not be able to afford to 100% pay for this "new" coverage. So, like in (1), our employees are going to GET significantly less and pay significantly more.
Already my company pays ridiculous taxes, and this new "tax" hurts exactly whom? Well, the very employees that Ocare was promised to help. And the "keep your plan" bovine defecation is literally just that: Pure, steaming, loose, and runny. Oh, and very, very stinky as well.
Now, I know the response already: Well, Ocare was put in place to provide coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, because SOMETHING just MUST be done in a "humane" society.
So, let me ask a few questions about all this "humane" business....
1) Is it "humane" to allow people that obviously and absolutely CANNOT afford it to keep on breeding and breeding and breeding? I mean, if supposedly I have some responsibility (being "humane" and all) to pay for all the kids that are popped out (that the parents KNOW they can't afford), then along with that "responsibility" I get some rights! One of those rights that logically follows from this "responsibility" is: I get to choose who gets to have kids. Right? And, if not, please explain how I am forced to be in a situation of unlimited exposure to risk with exactly zero power to mitigate against or control that risk! How EXACTLY in principle is this any different from you putting a gun to my head and FORCING me to play 1/6 Russian Roulette, then 1/3, then 1/2, and so on.
2) Is it "humane" to intentionally screw over huge segments of society in order to benefit others? I mean, why is the fact that poor people can "only" go to the ER (for free) somehow so "inhumane," when by "fixing" that "problem," you are doubling (or more) the costs to the people that have been paying and paying ALL ALONG?
3) DO we REALLY want to become just another European socialist democracy?
ALL I know for SURE is that in my sphere Ocare is proving to be a DISASTER of literally EPIC proportions, and it will completely change our business model! And THAT was not supposed to be the result to SMALL businesses nor their employees.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
This is all about "thinning the herd".
60 Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.
Dead people can't collect medicare or social security.
There's nothing new about this.
Progressives have been trying to off the "unusefull" since their beginnings at the turn of the last century with Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement.
Just back then they weren't old, just the wrong color or class.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!