National Health Care Bill...A national health scare?

[ChickOn2]

what if this, what if that? sometimes life sucks, and you deal with it. America is the land of opportunity. Not the land of handouts. We make opportunity for success available to everyone, so that you can go out on your own and get it. It doesn't mean we should hand it to you.

I guess I just plain ole disagree. I feel like if you are a rightful American citizen and you need help, you should get it, period. that's what makes US different from places like Mexico, India, all them miscellaneous "-istan" countries where they have no problem letting their people lay down in the street and die, then leave their bodies there for the vultures because they temporarily needed a plate of food, a shot of medicine or a roof over their heads, but couldn't get it. We HAVE it to give, so why not?

No one said sit up on welfare and food stamps your whole life. But if there's a family, the parent got laid off/downsized/outsourced and the kids are hungry and sick, then dammit, they need to get fed and go to the doctor until mom or dad can find another job. Yes, it does cost me. But those are MY friends and neighbors, so to me, it's worth it.

It's just a plain ole difference in philosophy, as simple as that:p I'll still ride with you, though:D

[ChickOn2]

Hrm.. then why not sell your motorcycles and help them out instead of trying to force me to follow your convictions? You sure would't like me pushing my pro-life convictions on you so what makes you think pushing your 'I don't really want to sacrifice but need to feel good about myself so I'll use other people's money' agenda on me?

What makes you think I'm not pro-life?

If the left was so concerned about the poor and disenfranchised in this country they'd sell their toys and buy more canned goods for the homeless.

OK touche' lol I'm not walking around butt ass naked because I gave my bra and panties to the poor. But I AM paying my share of the taxes to support this nation, our schools, our infrastructure, and yes the underprivileged. Not because I wanna 'feel good', but because I like to HAVE things. Like decent roads to drive on, fair schools to send my kids to, the police department to show up when I call, and as few sick, hungry and homeless people as possible, if it can be helped.

Don't confuse me for no 'hands across america' type shit. I just know that services cost money, and I'm willing to pay the cost. What you're saying only works if you DON'T drive on my nice paved roads, or if your house catches on fire, don't be calling MY fire department, grab your bootstraps and a bucket.

Healthcare is another one of the same kinds of services. It costs sure, but it's needed, just like trash pick-up, public education and highway patrol.

[Aerik]

Exactly. I'm not a liberal because I like people (I most certainly do not). I'm a liberal because I have to live here, and I'd rather it not be a place where I have to gun down starving poor folks trying to rob me on my way to my car. I'd rather it not be a place where the guy making my burger is snotting all over my food because he can't afford antibiotics, and I'd rather it not be a place where everyone works at WallyWorld because we can't afford to go to college.

Seriously, if you don't want a government, don't want taxes, don't want public health, or any of that other 'intrusive big-government liberal nonsense', move to Somalia.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

And when you get back, you'll do like I do-- you'll vote for the most liberal thing running, and then yell at it constantly because it's not liberal enough.

Oh, saying that reminded me of this, so here:

Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I happen to be a pro-gun liberal.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Aerik

[Disclaimer]

[Cheech]

walking around butt ass naked because I gave my bra and panties to the poor.

I am strangely comfortable with this idea. Please, elaborate using visual aids.

[Cheech]

Exactly. I'm not a liberal because I like people (I most certainly do not). I'm a liberal because I have to live here, and I'd rather it not be a place where I have to gun down starving poor folks trying to rob me on my way to my car. I'd rather it not be a place where the guy making my burger is snotting all over my food because he can't afford antibiotics, and I'd rather it not be a place where everyone works at WallyWorld because we can't afford to go to college.

Seriously, if you don't want a government, don't want taxes, don't want public health, or any of that other 'intrusive big-government liberal nonsense', move to Somalia.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

And when you get back, you'll do like I do-- you'll vote for the most liberal thing running, and then yell at it constantly because it's not liberal enough.

Oh, saying that reminded me of this, so here:

Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I happen to be a pro-gun liberal.

I gotta say, the man's got a point. The absolute ultimate in lawlessness on the planet right now is in Somalia. You can carve out your own little fiefdom right on the Horn of Africa, and as long as your ammunition and supplies hold out, you can live there for a long while. Completely self-sufficient, no government to tell you how to run your life, if you get recognized sovereignty by the UN you'll be able to purchase whatever you want tax free. I would recommend getting some others to join you, as it would only be a matter of time before you are horribly outnumbered by pro-gun forces. Of course, this would involve building some sort of rule framework within your hideaway, a government if you will. On second thought, you might want to make a separate sovereign sanctuary just for you. Hell, it worked for the Vatican for a couple hundred years.

[dmagicglock]

but nobody is asking for complete anarchy... we just want LESS government, not NO government at all. Where as the communists/socialists/liberals have already taken over the private means of production here and are trying to take over more and redistribute more and more wealth and benefits. You can compare a conservative paradise to somalia, but then i'll have to compare a modern liberal paradise to say North Korea, which is sooo much better than Somalia.

[Disclaimer]

[Disclaimer]

Better 1 than 10.

[Aerik]

Government officials do occasionally skim off the top-- and when we catch them, we put them in prison.

For-profit companies are designed for the explicit purpose of skimming off the top. That's fine if we're talking about non-essential things like running shoes or blue jeans, but that's not something I'm willing to accept with my healthcare, or that of my family.

[dmagicglock]

barney frank isn't in prison? what about his boyfriend and all the fannie mae and freddie mac scandals?

[Aerik]

For the record, I'm not a communist. And I'm not a socialist either, at least not in the way you're thinking. I do believe that, since we're going to have a government, and it's going to work for someone, that someone should be us. And I think that, if it's going to be working for us, it should provide certain services that benefit the citizens of this country, as efficiently and transparently as possible.

Last time I checked, there were still plenty of private, for-profit companies in this country. Government going to great lengths to try and bail out a couple of companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans does not make this Soviet Russia overnight. I'm not saying I agree 100% with how it was handled, but lets be realistic here.

[Aerik]

Oooh you found a politician who managed to stay out of prison, now all my arguments are invalid.

Given that I don't have the patience to go hunting for whatever you think Barney Frank should be in prison for, I'll just say this: just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply.

My point was that, when we catch (read: convict) government officials skimming, they should go to prison- if sometimes they don't, that's our fault. If you think he should be in prison, start advocating for it-- write letters, call radio shows, whatever. Public will is the fastest way to get politicians to act, but it takes effort and coordination.

[Aerik]

Sure, but we know how totally hands-off capitalism ends up-- 1929. Anyway, I am not anti-capitalism. It's just that, if the system's going to lean toward anyone (us or the companies), I'd prefer that it lean toward us. I don't want profit banned, or all businesses nationalized, or any such nonsense. I just want my government to strive to maintain a framework which aims to hold a balance between the best aspects of capitalism and the best aspects of socialism. Neither works very well alone. So sure, give me capitalist TV manufacturers, and socialized roads. Etc.

[Aerik]

And the other isn't going to go away, so you may as well try to get your money's worth out of your investment.

As for the car companies, I'd just as soon see us bring back protectionist tariffs to slow the imports and tell everyone to fuck off while we make our own shit. But first we have to get our car companies into the current decade design-wise.

[Aerik]

But first we have to get our car companies into the current decade design-wise.

Like I said, they'd have to have their shit together first- I'm talking in long-term ideas, not policy that could be implemented tomorrow.

Incidentally, I'd still take a late-60's Stang over anything anyone else was building at the time. Or now, for that matter.

[Cheech]

100% against that idea. The Big 3 won't compete when there's competition. What do you think we'll get if they're the only kids on the block? If you think a Dodge Stratus couldn't get any shittier think about the idea of zero reason to innovate and excell. I'd have to buy the shitty Detroit ride or pay a fucking bullshit tariff to own a quality automobile? Get outta' hear with that nonsense. Now you're just talking crazy talk. Rewarding their poor performance by removing the competition?? Surely' date=' you don't think that's a wise idea.[/quote']

I'm going to have to agree with this.

[ChickOn2]

I am strangely comfortable with this idea. Please, elaborate using visual aids.

LOL! well if we no longer pay taxes and my Victoria's Secrets can somehow help save my fellow man from starvation... of course I would have to do my duty... you agree to come and document the transaction, yes?

[dmagicglock]

I can't believe this didn't make it to the mainstream media sooner... This is from 2003 and it shows what Obama's real intentions are (a single payer system)... aww barry wants to get rid of competition and the private insurance companies after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

[magley64]

100% against that idea. The Big 3 won't compete when there's competition. What do you think we'll get if they're the only kids on the block? If you think a Dodge Stratus couldn't get any shittier think about the idea of zero reason to innovate and excell. I'd have to buy the shitty Detroit ride or pay a fucking bullshit tariff to own a quality automobile? Get outta' hear with that nonsense. Now you're just talking crazy talk. Rewarding their poor performance by removing the competition?? Surely' date=' you don't think that's a wise idea.[/quote']

we can all see how well that worked for harley davidson...

[Aerik]

I think people missed the part where I said it wouldn't be applicable until the companies had their shit together- I'm not interested in buying crappy Chevys either, but I would like to see American companies who are making a good product given an advantage on our home turf.

Frankly, the more we manufacture our own stuff, the better off I think we are.

I was certainly not advocating that we just drive out Honda and such right now and all drive Cobalts with the wheels falling off.

I was speaking strategy, not tactics.

[fusion]

I think people missed the part where I said it wouldn't be applicable until the companies had their shit together- I'm not interested in buying crappy Chevys either, but I would like to see American companies who are making a good product given an advantage on our home turf.

That part right there is bullshit. Either they can compete on their own merits or they can't.

[Aerik]

Then the debate is really about whether we think it's worthwhile for us to try and keep building cars at all in this country- I would rather see us lose a little money (although I'd prefer we get our cash back out of a short-term investment) in order to bludgeon our companies into some kind of modernity rather than see the US totally stop making cars because our huge companies died of their own stagnant thinking.

Think about it, though- what really happens if we just said," They failed, so fuck 'em."? Would a new American car company be able to get up to speed against entrenched companies like Honda or Toyota? Or would we just have to more or less accept that imports are the only cars available anymore?

Interesting thought experiment, anyway.

And anyway, why shouldn't give our own companies an advantage (and a benefit for keeping their jobs here-- that part would have to be included)?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Aerik

[fusion]

Your problem is thinking along buy American made lines. First I couldn't careless if it's American made if it isn't up to snuff. Second, it's a global market. We're not isolationists and the bigger picture needs to be realized. You don't think Honda and Toyota contribute a TON to America and its economy? Ford fails...fuck 'em. GM fails...fuck 'em. etc. Don't get me wrong given two equals I'll pick American every time, but it's not my job to lower my standards, it's their job to raise theirs.

[dmagicglock]

Then the debate is really about whether we think it's worthwhile for us to try and keep building cars at all in this country- I would rather see us lose a little money (although I'd prefer we get our cash back out of a short-term investment) in order to bludgeon our companies into some kind of modernity rather than see the US totally stop making cars because our huge companies died of their own stagnant thinking.

Think about it, though- what really happens if we just said," They failed, so fuck 'em."? Would a new American car company be able to get up to speed against entrenched companies like Honda or Toyota? Or would we just have to more or less accept that imports are the only cars available anymore?

Interesting thought experiment, anyway.

And anyway, why shouldn't give our own companies an advantage (and a benefit for keeping their jobs here-- that part would have to be included)?

Just like when any other competitor fails, the one that remains picks up more market share.. would probably repurpose GM/ford/chrysler facilities in the US and many of the people that lost their jobs would get new jobs at Toyota or Honda because they would have an increase demand for their product and would need additional employees, facilities to meet the necessary production. If you decrease the incentive for "foreign" companies to do business here by playing favorites with the domestics, we end up losing out in the bigger picture because nobody would invest in the U.S. Market because there's no incentive and the risks would outweigh the rewards. Then we end up losing all the tax revenue from the foreign companies to try and make our domestic companies succeed.