Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:04pm PT
|
Bush = trillions wasted, 100,000s dead
Obama = millions now have health care insurance
This is the sum substance of a Politard zombie argument.
I never even knew these ridicules stupid zombies existed until this forum.
No wonder the USA is falling down farther and farther.
It's run by politard zombies, Israels and nutcases ......
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
|
I do not live in the past,you brought it up.
Look, the whole idea behind the ACA,is the more that participate the better OUR chances of reducing HC costs.
If you do not [any of you] believe that simple premise,the more all of US will suffer with fixed pricing.
Simple Economics.
You guys on the right are all about money,I cannot ,for the life of me understand why you can't get on board with reducing costs.
Instead ,you hate Obama.
This cannot succeed ,your political future depends on killing this.
What is your all knowing vision then?
And please tell me how you will win any election if you actually shut the ACA down.
Remember ,always consider yourself.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:07pm PT
|
Apogee, Dirtbag, and Dr. F Politard zombie nutcases .....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:11pm PT
|
'apogee'
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:13pm PT
|
Apogee, Dirtbag, and Dr. F Politard zombie nutcases .....
What? I don't even get an honorable mention?
Curt
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:38pm PT
|
this one for werner
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:40pm PT
|
You, and the media, protect his evil doings.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:40pm PT
|
expensive tech stuff
|
|
shit tooth
Trad climber
Bozeman, MT
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 10:58pm PT
|
As somebody who works very hard, gets paid very little, and has no health insurance, it is a very frustrating life. Everyday in many ways I am on the brink of losing everything if I simply break a bone/get sick/ whatever. I work physical jobs, so if I were to ever become ill, I would have a huge bill, and no job. Sure theres workers comp, but, theres also rent due every month. I'll check on obamacare here soon, but for now, I'll continue to live a paranoid existence that all my time, money, and energy could very well end up disappearing all in one quick accident. My american dream is to go to Canada.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 11:16pm PT
|
^^^^ZOMBIE!!!^^^^^
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
|
Moderate Socialist.
I heard he fathered two black children.....
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 11:27pm PT
|
What's the deal, anyway?
All of these Repubs keep squawkin' about how Obama is the devil incarnate and is driving our country to the bowels of hell....
And if you ask them a simple question...just give one example of anything as hellish as thousands of deaths, destruction and deficit that the last POTUS produced...
...such a simple question...should be a slam-dunk, given their vitriolic convictions...
...and all you get are <<crickets>>...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2013 - 11:45pm PT
|
Jesus Christ advocated social justice. What's your problem with it?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2013 - 12:23am PT
|
^^^^^Hi Lois.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2013 - 12:41am PT
|
Damn...I knew those diatribes looked familiar.
Lois returns!
|
|
MisterE
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2013 - 12:46am PT
|
Reactive behavioral patterns are so hot right now.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2013 - 01:00am PT
|
I have still not heard a convincing argument from anyone who opposes a public option as to why these folks do not also oppose public education, public police protection, public military, public roads, and so on.
I've been watching in fascinated horror, trying not to get sucked in. But I just can't help myself. This question has been answered by several on this thread, but let me summarize:
public != federal
public can = federal, state, county, or city
police protection = city
military = federal
roads = city, county, or federal
fire fighters = city, county, or state
etc.
MOST of these "public" things you mention are NOT federal, and they should not be. However, the military is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution; and interstate highways fall neatly into the interstate commerce clause without doing any violence to its intent.
AND, it's a very bad argument to say, in effect: Look at all the socialism that has already crept into public policy; you anti-socialists should (somehow) THEREFORE be enthusiastic about yet more socialism.
There are at least two issues here:
1) The feds should not be doing what is not CLEARLY granted to them as a power in the Constitution, particularly not when states historically can (and have) been handling the thing.
2) It is one thing to take tax money and SPEND it to accomplish something of NATIONAL benefit that CANNOT be accomplished by individual states (such as the paradigm example: national defense, or even interstate highways). It is another thing entirely to take tax money and flat-out REDISTRIBUTE it to individuals.
As I said, I would support a single-payer system, even though I personally believe that anything like that violates BOTH of the principles stated above. We are TOO FAR down the road now to turn back now. But that is a pragmatic acceptance of reality rather than a principled agreement. However, I do find it galling to hear that Obamacare (or a single-payer system) is all "principled" and so forth.
The ONLY principle I hear is this: You SHOULD be willing to ensure that "the working poor" have health care, and this is OBVIOUS; so if you don't support that, you are a selfish bastard. Etc., etc.
But I really can IN-PRINCIPLE oppose the redistribution of money to "the working poor" without being a selfish bastard.
And "the working poor" is just a catch-phrase to float the "selfish bastard" notion. In actual fact, there is no one "working poor" pool that can fairly be referred to.
To whit....
I grew up in Riverside/San Bernardino. Everybody I knew was "working poor" or poorer. I grew up and got educated as a "working poor" guy, and, being a white male in an era of staunch affirmative action, I got NO breaks at all. None of this "wealth redistribution" to help a poor white kid get educated, while my black friends were getting totally free rides.
Now, to this "kid in Compton" bit: Let me tell you a scenario I saw again and again while I was growing up. Let's talk "kid in Riverside," which is the same difference.
Here's the family of that "kid in Riverside." Unmarried parents that have been living together for three years (they will break up two years later). The "family" consists of mother of five kids, father of two of the kids, and the five kids.
Father is a drug dealer, and he works at the 7-11 part time. Mother is a drug dealer, and she does not work a regular job. But, with five kids, she does pretty well with welfare: subsidized housing, food stamps, Medical (what state-supported health care was called bitd), and subsidized utilities. Did I mention that both are doing REALLY well as drug dealers?
Both parents of working age and in good health. Contributions to society: virtually nil. Oh, and I failed to mention: mother is pregnant and will have new kid on the state/federal dole. And, after the break up a little more than a year after she has kid-six, she'll get arrested, and all six kids will be "in the system," and basically the whole "family" will be 100% on the taxpayer's tab!
Now, explain PRECISELY to me EXACTLY why I, today, have ANY responsibility to "help" this "family" (and thousands just like them) with my tax dollars.
EXACTLY what moral principle grounds the laws that forcibly EXTRACT money from me to redistribute it to this "family" and thousands like them?
This is a "family" that is DEFINED by bad life choices, that REFUSES to contribute to the betterment of society, and that just keeps poppin' out the kids about as fast as the breeder-cow can get pregnant again. Tell me EXACTLY how I have ANY responsibility for these kids, when I have NO say in how many this "family" gets to add to my supposed "responsibility."
Don't hand me vague, hand-waving CRAP about how this "exceptional nation" SHOULD be able to "support" all such families like this! There are moral principles involved here, and it is NOT the case that the ONLY moral principles in play constrain the middle-class such that they are forced to pay and pay and pay for the utterly irresponsible life choices of others.
EXACTLY how does personal responsibility and accountability come into play in "the system" as we have it and are talking about expanding it?
Here's the fundamental issue: When my tax dollars go toward building a road, I personally benefit from this public infrastructure. Same with national defense (although we don't need NEARLY as much of it as we have!) However, when my tax dollars go toward, say, a food stamps or subsidized health-care program, it is a MUCH harder case to make (certainly NOT an obvious one) that I in ANY way personally benefit from that "infrastructure." And in the scenario I just described, I DEFY you to show me ANY personal benefit that does not beg the question (such as, "Well, you're going to pay anyway, so it's better to have a better system).
Growing up in So-Cal was eye opening, and I've just seen FAR too much abuse of "the system" to be enthusiastic about expanding "the system." Add to this fact the regular amnesty programs for illegal aliens, a sieve of a border, and an "immigration reform" direction that amounts to the naturalization of millions more people that will make them even more able to suck off of "the system" than they already are, and you've got one topsy-turvy set of "morals" here: making the middle class "responsible" for more and more and more, while "the working poor" (indistinguishable from the HUGE pile of outright abusers) have less and less personal responsibility for their bad life choices.
So, what we "ought" to do here is not NEARLY as clear-cut as most of you here seem to think. And nobody is a "selfish bastard" for being deeply concerned about the abuses of "the working poor" and how we're going to pay for it all!
Show me HOW to FAIRLY pay for a single-payer system, and I'll take it as the least of the various "evils." I'm happy to compromise. But don't even try to float your high-minded "principles" as though they are so obvious. They are not.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2013 - 01:15am PT
|
Shiloh, my entire post was not directed at you. I thought that was clear by my many references to points other have made that you clearly have not.
You and I are in basic (pragmatic) agreement about the basic approach to paying for a single-payer system. But the devil is in the details, and (given that I'm tabling my principles to compromise) I'm going to really care about those details!
Most of my post was directed at the people on this thread that think it's just soooo obvious that Obamacare "corrects" some deep and profound moral problem in this nation and that those who resist are selfish bastards.
And you are correct that a cash register tax (of various sorts) will have my drug-dealing "friends" paying their fair share. I LIKE it!
Income taxes are a terrible, regressive form of taxation. Purchase-taxes are the way to go, virtually in-toto.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!